Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutchinson and Blotchy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    The coroner has just heard evidence from Cox, who has suggested Mary was in her room by midnight, and still there at 1:00 am.
    Followed by Prater who felt sure all was quiet in room 13, and no signs of light by 1:30.
    Therefore, up to Lewis stepping up to testify, as far as the inquest knows, Mary is still in her room, and quite possibly dead by the time Lewis walks up the passage.

    I can see why the inquest paid no attention to whomever this man & woman might have been. They had not been traced by police, so they had not submitted a statement to police identifying who they were.



    I still see no reason to suggest there was another couple further on past Millers Court. You know Hutchinson said there was no-one else around, which includes no 2nd man - with or without a woman. Just the couple he had been watching.

    There was only one couple in Dorset St.

    I accept your suggestions for a detailed questioning, but I still see the sequence of events I described as the best possibility for what occurred that night.
    The Coroner is not interested because he is following the sequence. He knows that this man and woman are either passing by or further up Dorset Street. He clarifies that no one was in the Court when Lewis was there. She sees the man loitering and he seems important enough to try and garner a description.

    Hutchinson had no reason to mention the couple because he was not asked. I laid out my reasons previously:

    To my mind Hutchinson when reciting his Police statement deals with Mary Kelly and the man he saw with her. Who he saw in the street after they had gone indoors is irrelevant. Hutchinson is concerned with relaying what he saw and how long Kelly was inside with the man which was at least 45 minutes or thereabouts. In his Press statement he again focuses on Kelly and AK man. I feel he is then prompted by questions from the Journalist he is talking too. His answers are relayed in the Press report as almost a continuous statement. I teased this out earlier but it was as follows hypothetically:

    Pressman: Did you see any Police around?

    Hutchinson: One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset Street.

    Pressman: Did you see any other men around?

    Hutchinson: I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.

    I feel that Abberline would have clarified this with Hutchinson during his interrogation. Did he see anyone else in the street? When did he see them and where did they go? Abberline knows that Lewis walked to Miller's Court. He knows she saw another couple. If I am thinking this needs clarified as an armchair detective 134 years later I am quite sure Abberline would have been keen to get it clarified also. He believed Hutchinson which suggests to me Abberline got the answers he needed.
    Last edited by Sunny Delight; 08-06-2022, 03:39 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

      There was no guarantee the Police would buy his story. The thing is hearing the story through the grapevine and using it to gain notoriety cannot be disproved because AK man was never found. It can't be refuted but I find it an almost laughable suggestion that as the Inquest finished that day and stories began to circulate George Hutchinson sat and thought, I know- I will go to the Police and say I am the man who they say was loitering, I need a description of someone to be seen with Mary Kelly. I know- I will make up a well dressed man sporting some fine accessories. Then the Police might believe me and I will get a few shillings for my trouble when they ask me to look for him hopefully. It defies logic and stretches credibility to the limit or even beyond. He came up with all this within a few hours at most of any stories coming out.
      Of course there was no guarantee that the police would buy his story just like there was no guarantee that they would fall for Packer or Violena's stories.

      Report by Swanson dated 19 Oct - and it was not until after the publication in newspapers of the description of a man seen by the PC that Packer gave the foregoing particulars to two private enquiry men. Unfortunately for him he had already told the police different. What was Packer hoping to gain ?

      And from the Times dated 12 Oct - Early last Saturday morning, walking alone along Hanbury-street, he noticed a man and woman quarrelling in a very excited manner. Violenia distinctly heard the man threaten to kill the woman by sticking a knife into her. They passed on, and Violenia went to his lodging. After the murder he communicated what he had seen to the police. At 1 o'clock yesterday afternoon Sergeant Thicke, assisted by Inspector Canaby, placed about a dozen men, the greater portion of whom were Jews, in the yard of the Leman-street Police-station. Pizer was then brought out and allowed to place himself where he thought proper among the assembled men. He is a man of short stature, with black whiskers and shaven chin. Violenia, who had been accommodated in one of the lower rooms of the station-house, was then brought up into the yard. Having keenly scrutinized all the faces before him, he at once, without any hesitation or doubt whatever, went up to Pizer and identified him as the man whom he heard threaten a woman on the night of the murder. Pizer, who has not been allowed to have communication with any of his friends, was then taken back to the station-house. It was then decided, with the approval of Detective-Inspector Abberline, that Violenia should be taken to the Whitechapel mortuary to see whether he could identify the deceased woman as the one he had seen in Pizer's company early on Saturday morning. The result is not announced, but it is believed that he was unable to identify her. Subsequently, cross-examination so discredited Violenia's evidence that it was wholly distrusted by the police, and Pizer was set at liberty.

      Again what was Violena hoping to gain ?

      Perhaps sell their stories, perhaps fifteen minutes of fame. Who knows but it did happen.

      I also want to point out an earlier post of yours SD - They had blood groupings which linked the Preston murder of Joan Harrison claimed in the letters to the person who had actually licked the envelopes of the hoax letters and tape. Only 6% of the population were of that group.
      Regarding the Yorkshire ripper case.
      It is now known that Joan was not a ripper victim . But before the hoaxer was caught , the police did believe that the hoaxer could have been her killer even after Sutcliffe was cleared . One in 18 chance of the same blood group,but it was just pure coincidence. Maybe Hutch didn't know about Sarah Lewis testimony and it is just pure coincidence that he said he was watching the court when Sarah said she saw someone. After all, as others have pointed out, Hutch never claimed to have seen her.

      One last point , from The Echo 10 Nov - Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operation upon his victim. She states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to her parents' house, which is situated immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public-house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man say, "Are you coming?" whereupon the woman, who appeared to be ? , turned in an opposite direction to watch the man apparently ? her to go. Mrs Kennedy went on her way, and nothing unusual occurred until about ? hour later. She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents' abode, but sat up and between ? three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of "Murder." in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated, she took no further ? of the circumstance until the morning when she found the police in ??? place, preventing all egress in the ?? of the small house in the court.
      If you believe that Kennedy was Sarah Lewis, or if you believe that Kennedy had heard Sarah's story and was passing it along as her own [ as I do ], the important point is that Sarah's story was doing the rounds on the tenth.

      Regards Darryl

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

        The Coroner is not interested because he is following the sequence. He knows that this man and woman are either passing by or further up Dorset Street.
        I wonder if we are separated on this point because I am using all the testimony (inquest + press), whereas you might only be using the inquest record?

        As the Daily News reports that this couple went up the court, I can't see how the coroner can interpret that as being further on down Dorset st.?

        I do recall you deciding that report must be wrong, but I don't recall you explaining why?

        After all, it is the Daily Telegraph that uses the term "further on", no-one else.
        So, why can't it be the D.T. that is wrong?
        Without a solid reason, your decision on this seems to be arbitrary.


        He clarifies that no one was in the Court when Lewis was there.
        I hope you agree that the couple seen by Hutch, did enter the court, and did go inside a room. So, naturally, there would be no-one in the court?


        She sees the man loitering and he seems important enough to try and garner a description.
        Yes.

        Hutchinson had no reason to mention the couple because he was not asked. I laid out my reasons previously:
        Yes, I remember. But, this means there was a second man in Dorset St. - the one he saw enter a lodging-house, and the one in company of a woman.
        Why then didn't he say that he had seen two men, not one?

        Hutchinson: I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.
        Exactly.

        I feel that Abberline would have clarified this with Hutchinson during his interrogation. Did he see anyone else in the street? When did he see them and where did they go? Abberline knows that Lewis walked to Miller's Court. He knows she saw another couple. If I am thinking this needs clarified as an armchair detective 134 years later I am quite sure Abberline would have been keen to get it clarified also. He believed Hutchinson which suggests to me Abberline got the answers he needed.
        I don't disagree, much has been lost without Abberline's record of an interrogation.

        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
          ......
          If you believe that Kennedy was Sarah Lewis, or if you believe that Kennedy had heard Sarah's story and was passing it along as her own [ as I do ], the important point is that Sarah's story was doing the rounds on the tenth.

          Regards Darryl
          As you at least appear to accept Lewis & Kennedy were individual people, then do you accept that Kennedy was staying at her parents house in Millers Court?
          If that be the case, then she had to be locked in when the police arrived, as was Lewis.

          We have a press report that tells us Kennedy spoke to Abberline.

          Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room.
          Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

          This is the only place where we hear of "a woman talking to two men", at the court.
          Unless it is a misprint for 'man talking to two women', but outside the Britannia?

          That aside, it is correct that the Saturday evening papers (Evening News, Echo, St. James Gazette, Star), published Kennedy's story, which suggests she spoke to them Saturday morning.
          - If Kennedy just repeated Lewis's story, then who was Lewis with on the Wednesday, when the two women were accosted?
          - Also, why change the time she passed by the Britannia (Kennedy said 3:00am, Lewis said 2:30)?
          - Why add a second female (poorly dressed, without any headgear), talking to the man outside the Britannia?
          - Why identify this second woman as Mary Kelly? (Evening News).
          - Lewis said she didn't know Mary Kelly, why didn't Kennedy say the same?
          - Why omit seeing that loiterer in Dorset St., opposite Millers Court?

          They are reasonable questions, if Kennedy is merely repeating Lewis's story, why change anything?


          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Mrs Kennedy's story, as published in the Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.

            A representative of the Press Association has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operations.

            She states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house, which is immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming," whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go. Mrs. Kennedy went on her way, and nothing unusual occurred until about half an hour later. She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents' abode, but sat up, and between half past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated she took no further notice of the circumstance until the morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small house in this court.

            When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night, she made a statement to the above effect.

            She has since supplemented that statement by the following:

            On Wednesday evening, about eight o'clock, me and my sister were in the neighbourhood of Bethnal Green road when we were accosted by a very suspicious man about forty years of age. He wore a short jacket, over which he had a long top coat. He had a black moustache, and wore a billycock hat. He invited us to accompany him into a lonely spot "As he was known about here, and there was a policeman looking at him." She asserts that no policeman was in sight. He made several strange remarks, and appeared to be agitated. He was very white in the face and made every endeavour to prevent them looking him straight in the face. He carried a black bag. He avoided walking with them, and led the way into a very dark thoroughfare "at the back of the workhouse," inviting them to follow, which they did. He then pushed open a small door in a pair of large gates, and requested one of them to follow him, remarking "I only want one of you," whereupon the women became suspicious. He acted in a very strange and suspicious manner, and refused to leave his bag in the possession of one of the females. Both women became alarmed at his actions and escaped, at the same time raising an alarm of Jack the Ripper. A gentleman, who was passing, is stated to have intercepted the man while the women made their escape.

            Mrs. Kennedy asserts that the man whom she saw on Friday morning with the woman at the corner of Dorset street resembles very closely the individual who caused such alarm on the night in question, and that she would recognise him again if confronted with him.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            In the above, I tried to separate Kennedy's story by placing it in italics, from the editor's additions in regular type.

            Many of us will have read her story before. But, I think it must be seriously considered how likely it would be for someone to read Lewis's story for the first time and remember it sufficiently to provide the above version.

            Some are reluctant to accept Hutchinson could have a good memory. Mr Kennedy must have had a brilliant memory, superior to Hutch, and to relate it with sufficient confidence to fool the police & reporters into thinking it was her own story.

            Yet, there are significant difference, and it is those differences that indicate better than anything else, that Kennedy had a slightly different experience on Friday morning.

            The Evening News also adds:

            "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."
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              Mrs Kennedy's story, as published in the Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.

              A representative of the Press Association has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operations.

              She states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house, which is immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming," whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go. Mrs. Kennedy went on her way, and nothing unusual occurred until about half an hour later. She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents' abode, but sat up, and between half past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated she took no further notice of the circumstance until the morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small house in this court.

              When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night, she made a statement to the above effect.

              She has since supplemented that statement by the following:

              On Wednesday evening, about eight o'clock, me and my sister were in the neighbourhood of Bethnal Green road when we were accosted by a very suspicious man about forty years of age. He wore a short jacket, over which he had a long top coat. He had a black moustache, and wore a billycock hat. He invited us to accompany him into a lonely spot "As he was known about here, and there was a policeman looking at him." She asserts that no policeman was in sight. He made several strange remarks, and appeared to be agitated. He was very white in the face and made every endeavour to prevent them looking him straight in the face. He carried a black bag. He avoided walking with them, and led the way into a very dark thoroughfare "at the back of the workhouse," inviting them to follow, which they did. He then pushed open a small door in a pair of large gates, and requested one of them to follow him, remarking "I only want one of you," whereupon the women became suspicious. He acted in a very strange and suspicious manner, and refused to leave his bag in the possession of one of the females. Both women became alarmed at his actions and escaped, at the same time raising an alarm of Jack the Ripper. A gentleman, who was passing, is stated to have intercepted the man while the women made their escape.

              Mrs. Kennedy asserts that the man whom she saw on Friday morning with the woman at the corner of Dorset street resembles very closely the individual who caused such alarm on the night in question, and that she would recognise him again if confronted with him.
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              In the above, I tried to separate Kennedy's story by placing it in italics, from the editor's additions in regular type.

              Many of us will have read her story before. But, I think it must be seriously considered how likely it would be for someone to read Lewis's story for the first time and remember it sufficiently to provide the above version.

              Some are reluctant to accept Hutchinson could have a good memory. Mr Kennedy must have had a brilliant memory, superior to Hutch, and to relate it with sufficient confidence to fool the police & reporters into thinking it was her own story.

              Yet, there are significant difference, and it is those differences that indicate better than anything else, that Kennedy had a slightly different experience on Friday morning.

              The Evening News also adds:

              "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."
              The Press reports are convoluted when it comes to Mrs. Kennedy that it is extremely difficult to come to any concrete conclusion. You made some fine points previously to me and I accept them as legitimate but the fact Mrs. Kennedy is not found in the Police files nor can be discern from the Press reports exactly what she saw or who she was we can't take her statement as anything but hugely caveated.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                I wonder if we are separated on this point because I am using all the testimony (inquest + press), whereas you might only be using the inquest record?

                As the Daily News reports that this couple went up the court, I can't see how the coroner can interpret that as being further on down Dorset st.?

                I do recall you deciding that report must be wrong, but I don't recall you explaining why?

                After all, it is the Daily Telegraph that uses the term "further on", no-one else.
                So, why can't it be the D.T. that is wrong?
                Without a solid reason, your decision on this seems to be arbitrary.




                I hope you agree that the couple seen by Hutch, did enter the court, and did go inside a room. So, naturally, there would be no-one in the court?



                Yes.



                Yes, I remember. But, this means there was a second man in Dorset St. - the one he saw enter a lodging-house, and the one in company of a woman.
                Why then didn't he say that he had seen two men, not one?



                Exactly.



                I don't disagree, much has been lost without Abberline's record of an interrogation.
                I see the reporting as wrong because it is crucial information that no one else picked up on. At this stage as you say the last confirmed sighting of Mary Kelly had been with the man described by Mary Ann Cox. Funnily enough he fits the description of Lawende and Schwartz much better than AK man which may have been why Walter Dew felt Hutchinson had got the day wrong. However I digress we also hear from Elizabeth Prater that at 1:30am no noise or light is coming from Kelly's room. Sarah Lewis stating she saw a man and a woman in Dorset Street entering the Court at 2:30am surely would be hugely significant. A possible sighting of Kelly. Firstly the Police would have checked with every resident in the Court could it have been them. The tracking of this couple vital to taking the investigation forward.

                Not only that but you seem determined to downplay this sighting of an unidentified female entering the Court with a man not long from when the victim was believed murdered. The Coroner would make no assumptions and be desperate to garner infomation on them. His last confirmed sighting of the victim was almost two hours previously.To me what has happened is the newspaper has conflated Lewis stating the Couple passed by and then stating Hutchinson was looking up the Court. They have misreported this as the Couple passing up the Court.

                In regards no one being in the Court the context is crucial. The Coroner has asked Lewis about Dorset Street and if she saw anyone. Now he wants to know if she saw anyone suspicious in Miller's Court which she states she did not as there was no one in the Court. I am confused by your stating that Kelly and AK man would have went inside? Obviously they did.

                I think by Hutchinson may have interpreted the question as did he see any men that were on their own? We don't know the question he was asked but from his answer it looks like he was asked did he see any other men around. A man passing by with a woman would not have been worth mentioning. I must admit to being confused by Hutchinson stating he had been looking for the man all day that he saw enter the Lodging House but I am finding it difficult to suggest reasons why?
                Last edited by Sunny Delight; 08-07-2022, 05:46 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  As you at least appear to accept Lewis & Kennedy were individual people, then do you accept that Kennedy was staying at her parents house in Millers Court?
                  If that be the case, then she had to be locked in when the police arrived, as was Lewis.

                  We have a press report that tells us Kennedy spoke to Abberline.

                  Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room.
                  Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

                  This is the only place where we hear of "a woman talking to two men", at the court.
                  Unless it is a misprint for 'man talking to two women', but outside the Britannia?

                  That aside, it is correct that the Saturday evening papers (Evening News, Echo, St. James Gazette, Star), published Kennedy's story, which suggests she spoke to them Saturday morning.
                  - If Kennedy just repeated Lewis's story, then who was Lewis with on the Wednesday, when the two women were accosted?
                  - Also, why change the time she passed by the Britannia (Kennedy said 3:00am, Lewis said 2:30)?
                  - Why add a second female (poorly dressed, without any headgear), talking to the man outside the Britannia?
                  - Why identify this second woman as Mary Kelly? (Evening News).
                  - Lewis said she didn't know Mary Kelly, why didn't Kennedy say the same?
                  - Why omit seeing that loiterer in Dorset St., opposite Millers Court?

                  They are reasonable questions, if Kennedy is merely repeating Lewis's story, why change anything?

                  I would say though Wickerman that your theory is one of the best, if not the best I have come across on the boards. If I am getting it correctly it is that this Bethnal Green character is possibly JTR hiding in plain sight. In regards Kelly's murder George Hutchinson meets her as he says and AK man accosted Kelly soon after. Hutchinson is seen by Sarah Lewis who also sees Kelly and AK man before they enter the Court. Previously she passed the Bethnal Green man talking to a woman at the Brittania. Hutchinson leaves Dorset Street at 3 and Kelly's interaction with AK man ends at say 3:15am. By 3:30am Kelly is back on the streets at the Britannia with the Bethnal Green man and seen by a Mrs. Kennedy. By 4am she is back in her room with the man and this is when Lewis hears the cry of 'murder'. I think there are flaws but it is a compelling theory not contradicted by any overlaps in testimony.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

                    The Press reports are convoluted when it comes to Mrs. Kennedy that it is extremely difficult to come to any concrete conclusion. You made some fine points previously to me and I accept them as legitimate but the fact Mrs. Kennedy is not found in the Police files nor can be discern from the Press reports exactly what she saw or who she was we can't take her statement as anything but hugely caveated.
                    Hi, thankyou for that, I wasn't sure I was getting anywhere in raising the important points.

                    True, there is no mention of a Mrs Kennedy in police files, but equally, there is no mention of Sarah Lewis either.
                    Both women appear in the press.

                    Court Records are separate from police files, and those that have survived only confirm the role of Sarah Lewis anyway.

                    When we compare Lewis's testimony, both of the Wednesday and the Friday morning, with what is reported by Kennedy, we see Mrs Kennedy has more to say than Lewis.
                    Some had suggested Mrs Kennedy was repeating what Lewis was saying, on the contrary it appears Kennedy had the more complete story.
                    Also, it just doesn't wash that Lewis & Kennedy were the same people, for reason's already stated, or that Kennedy was a journalists invention. This forum has heard all these claims.
                    The two women had the same experiences on the Wednesday night, and on Friday morning at Millers Court, because in both cases they were together.
                    However, they had different experiences on the way to Millers Court on the Friday morning, because they arrived at different times.

                    As yet it has not been possible to identify the correct Mrs Kennedy in Census Records, though many have looked. It's not that none exist, it's just that there are several "Mrs Kennedy's" to choose from.
                    There are both Gallaghers & Keylor's in the Census, though in this case it is more probable the journalist thought he heard Gallagher when it was actually Keylor who lived in Millers Court.
                    Chris Scott, back in 2013 thought he had located the true Sarah Lewis. He published his research in Ripperologist #133, but Deb's, who mostly hangs out on Howard's place, had some doubts he had the right one.
                    Last edited by Wickerman; 08-07-2022, 06:32 PM.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

                      I see the reporting as wrong because it is crucial information that no one else picked up on. At this stage as you say the last confirmed sighting of Mary Kelly had been with the man described by Mary Ann Cox.
                      Yes, and the coroner heard nothing given in evidence to suggest Kelly had left her room after her liaison with Blotchy.

                      Which is why I'm a little puzzled that you think the coroner should have shown interest in this woman in case it was Kelly?
                      He had no cause to be thinking along those lines.

                      Bear in mind, Macdonald was aware of the time of death at possibly between 2:00-3:00 am, from the conclusion of the autopsy on Saturday.
                      Not many of the public may have been aware of this, it was a limited release in Sunday.

                      So, he heard Cox provide the last known client (Blotchy) at midnight when Kelly began singing, and she was still singing at 1:00, or just after, yet Prater says the room was dark & quiet, by 1:30.
                      The murder was assumed to have occurred between 2:00-3:00 am., so this is all close enough.

                      Then Sarah Lewis comes forward and mentions a man & woman (who she did not know) enter the court about 2:30, and presumably go into a room.

                      So how does he make the connection if he is not aware that Kelly had left her room?

                      Firstly the Police would have checked with every resident in the Court could it have been them. The tracking of this couple vital to taking the investigation forward.
                      But they didn't know.
                      The police only know the extent of Lewis's role from what we read in her police statement that she gave in the court on 9th Nov. She was interviewed by Abberline, she made no mention of any couple in the street, or walking up the passage.
                      The first they heard of it was at the inquest.

                      Not only that but you seem determined to downplay this sighting of an unidentified female entering the Court with a man not long from when the victim was believed murdered. The Coroner would make no assumptions and be desperate to garner infomation on them.....
                      On the contrary, I think you are trying to make it sound more significant than it probably was.
                      The coroner must have thought Kelly was still in her room, so gave nothing more than a polite pass to that part of Lewis's statement.
                      He can't follow it up, no-one else saw them, he isn't there to investigate the case - that's not his role, and the police have no idea what Lewis has just said.
                      So, questioning resumes on a more productive line.

                      In regards no one being in the Court the context is crucial. The Coroner has asked Lewis about Dorset Street and if she saw anyone. Now he wants to know if she saw anyone suspicious in Miller's Court which she states she did not as there was no one in the Court. I am confused by your stating that Kelly and AK man would have went inside? Obviously they did.
                      Yes, this is another case where we might be at cross-purposes.
                      The parallel between AK & Kelly, with Lewis's 'Couple' are hardly beyond dispute in my mind. So, the very fact AK & Kelly went up the passage, then went indoors, means we should expect to see Lewis's 'Couple' also go up the passage, then go indoors.
                      To me it only stands to reason, in both cases there would no-one in the court by the time Lewis arrived.

                      I think by Hutchinson may have interpreted the question as did he see any men that were on their own? We don't know the question he was asked but from his answer it looks like he was asked did he see any other men around. A man passing by with a woman would not have been worth mentioning....
                      Yet, it is for that same reason Hutchinson came forward - he saw a man with a woman.
                      He didn't mention a second couple because there wasn't one.
                      Didn't you express the fact that the simplest solution is often the right one?
                      Maybe it applies in this case?


                      I must admit to being confused by Hutchinson stating he had been looking for the man all day that he saw enter the Lodging House but I am finding it difficult to suggest reasons why?
                      I might point out that came from the press statement, not the police statement.
                      If you recall in his late night report Abberline wrote:

                      "..he can identify the man, and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible".

                      What we read in his press story of the following day was that he had been out looking for the man, as he promised the police.

                      The last few lines of his press statement must have separated by a question.

                      "I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset St. and no-one else".

                      (Question about Astrachan)

                      "I have been looking for the man (Astrachan) all day".


                      Which just goes to show how leaving out questions can give the reader the completely wrong impression.


                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

                        I would say though Wickerman that your theory is one of the best, if not the best I have come across on the boards. If I am getting it correctly it is that this Bethnal Green character is possibly JTR hiding in plain sight. In regards Kelly's murder George Hutchinson meets her as he says and AK man accosted Kelly soon after. Hutchinson is seen by Sarah Lewis who also sees Kelly and AK man before they enter the Court. Previously she passed the Bethnal Green man talking to a woman at the Brittania. Hutchinson leaves Dorset Street at 3 and Kelly's interaction with AK man ends at say 3:15am. By 3:30am Kelly is back on the streets at the Britannia with the Bethnal Green man and seen by a Mrs. Kennedy. By 4am she is back in her room with the man and this is when Lewis hears the cry of 'murder'. I think there are flaws but it is a compelling theory not contradicted by any overlaps in testimony.
                        Ah, OK, well, thankyou again, I didn't see that coming.
                        Yes, you seem to have it all wrapped up.

                        It's more of a developing scenario than a theory. A work-in-progress, all criticisms are welcome, in fact encouraged.
                        I just like to be sure critiques are working from the same sources I am. When we see events differently, it tests my scenario.

                        The other part to this is that I suspect the man (with peculiar eyes) seen by Bowyer in the court speaking with Kelly, on Wednesday evening (aka. Collars & Cuffs), was the same as the Britannia-man.

                        - Kennedy said the man who accosted them on Wednesday & who they saw on Friday, had an awkward gait, and an unnatural glare in his eyes, he tried to avoid eye contact.

                        Which, I believe, was also the same man (with weak or sore eyes, without any eyelashes) who appeared at the Bricklayer's Arm's with Stride.

                        - He walked with Stride past Packers window, bought some grapes, and stood opposite Dutfields Yard with Stride, was seen by PC Smith carrying the pkg. of grapes.

                        - He may have been the same man as Thimbleby saw running along Hanbury St. (with an awkward gait), towards Brick Lane just after 6:00 am, on the morning of the Chapman murder.

                        - Then there's the man seen by Sarah Ronay who was accosted by a man on the Thursday before the murder in Brushfield St., and seen by Mrs Paumier on the day of the murder in Sandy's Row.

                        All the physical descriptions are very similar, and this character seems to have had a confrontational attitude, if it's the same man.


                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Nah
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Ah, OK, well, thankyou again, I didn't see that coming.
                            Yes, you seem to have it all wrapped up.

                            It's more of a developing scenario than a theory. A work-in-progress, all criticisms are welcome, in fact encouraged.
                            I just like to be sure critiques are working from the same sources I am. When we see events differently, it tests my scenario.

                            The other part to this is that I suspect the man (with peculiar eyes) seen by Bowyer in the court speaking with Kelly, on Wednesday evening (aka. Collars & Cuffs), was the same as the Britannia-man.

                            - Kennedy said the man who accosted them on Wednesday & who they saw on Friday, had an awkward gait, and an unnatural glare in his eyes, he tried to avoid eye contact.

                            Which, I believe, was also the same man (with weak or sore eyes, without any eyelashes) who appeared at the Bricklayer's Arm's with Stride.

                            - He walked with Stride past Packers window, bought some grapes, and stood opposite Dutfields Yard with Stride, was seen by PC Smith carrying the pkg. of grapes.

                            - He may have been the same man as Thimbleby saw running along Hanbury St. (with an awkward gait), towards Brick Lane just after 6:00 am, on the morning of the Chapman murder.

                            - Then there's the man seen by Sarah Ronay who was accosted by a man on the Thursday before the murder in Brushfield St., and seen by Mrs Paumier on the day of the murder in Sandy's Row.

                            All the physical descriptions are very similar, and this character seems to have had a confrontational attitude, if it's the same man.

                            Hi Wick.

                            I think I've mentioned this to you before, but I think the BGB is the same man Thomas Eade saw with a knife up his sleeve that wore white overalls, carried a black bag and walked as though he had a stiff knee. He was thought to have assaulted a woman in Cambridge heath Road. A dairyman in Turner Street observed a very similarly dressed man (taking off white overalls) and talking about the murders when he wasn't asked about them. Comments made were similar to Mrs. Paumiers man. He was described as 5'8, dark complexion, dark whiskers and moustache and wide staring eyes. Last, a man was seen in Gordon Chambers, Bow, taking off white overalls after cleaning a stain off them and trying to sell them. He was arrested.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

                              Hi Wick.

                              I think I've mentioned this to you before, but I think the BGB is the same man Thomas Eade saw with a knife up his sleeve that wore white overalls, carried a black bag and walked as though he had a stiff knee. He was thought to have assaulted a woman in Cambridge heath Road. A dairyman in Turner Street observed a very similarly dressed man (taking off white overalls) and talking about the murders when he wasn't asked about them. Comments made were similar to Mrs. Paumiers man. He was described as 5'8, dark complexion, dark whiskers and moustache and wide staring eyes. Last, a man was seen in Gordon Chambers, Bow, taking off white overalls after cleaning a stain off them and trying to sell them. He was arrested.
                              Thankyou Jerry, yes this character completely slipped my mind. Another poster (was it George?) also reminded me of the same man just recently.
                              Walking with an awkward gait, or limp, may not be so unusual in the East end but it does set him apart from the general public at least.

                              I had located a report where a man wearing white overalls was arrested.

                              "An arrest has been made at bow, but whether it has any important bearing on the case has not transpired. The particulars connected with the arrest are as follow: - At about nine o'clock yesterday morning a man entered the Gordon Chambers - a lodging-house near Bow Church - and asked permission for a wash. This was granted him. He was afterwards observed to take off a pair of white overalls, and then seen to be drying his waistcoat by the fire, a stain having apparently been washed out from the garment. Afterwards he offered to sell the overalls for 3d. This offer receiving no response he went out. He, however, returned at midnight, this time being quite differently attired. The authorities of the house had now become suspicious, and they communicated with the police, with the result that the man was arrested at about one o'clock this morning, he being conveyed to the Bow-road Station. At that time there was no evidence against him beyond the suspicion resulting from his conduct."
                              https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881023.html

                              The trouble is, if I'm not mistaken, boiler makers or train Engineers did wear white overalls at the time. It might seem unusual to us in our day, but may have been a daily sight for people in the late 19th century.
                              The actions of the man do seem suspicious though, plus the awkward way of walking. Yes, I should add him to the list, I forgot all about him last night when I posted.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Right there in the Nichol's inquest, is this the Britannia-man/BGB, again?

                                Thomas Ede
                                , a signalman in the employ of the East London Railway Company, said he saw a man with a knife on the morning of the 8th.
                                The coroner was of opinion that this incident could have no reference to the present inquiry, as the 8th was the day of the Hanbury-street murder. He would, however, accept the evidence.
                                Witness then said: On Saturday, the 8th inst., at noon, I was coming down the Cambridge-heath-road, and when near the Forester's Arms I saw a man on the other side of the street. His peculiar appearance made me take notice of him. He seemed to have a wooden arm. I watched him until level with the Forester's Arms, and then he put his hand to his trouser's pocket, and I saw about four inches of a knife. I followed him, but he quickened his pace, and I lost sight of him.
                                Inspector Helson, in reply to the coroner, stated that the man had not been found.
                                Witness described the man as 5 ft. 8 in. high, about thirty-five years of age, with a dark moustache and whiskers. He wore a double-peaked cap, a short dark brown jacket, and a pair of clean white overalls over dark trousers. The man walked as though he had a stiff knee, and he had a fearful look about the eyes. He seemed to be a mechanic.
                                By the Jury: He was not a muscular man.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X