Hutchinson and Blotchy

[Wickerman]

... the only paper out of all of them that said a woman and a man passed up the court was wrong obviously....

Ok, but what makes it 'obviously wrong', given as Hutch says the same thing?

One source confirms the other.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think you're exaggerating, I already explained what Badham is interested in, twice now.

Until you can see an interview from an investigating officers point of view, then your opinion has no value. It's not based on anything.

Jon,

This is Hutchinson's statement:

One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else.

He actually tells you he saw "no one else". He didn't say: "and I saw no other suspicious people". You cannot possibly construe that to mean he is talking merely of suspicious people unless of course you have a theory which necessitates Hutchinson saw someone else but didn't mention it (I'm guessing you have the respectably dressed man in mind).

And, while I'm not privy to police procedure in 1888, my guess would be that the police would want to know everything seen by Hutchinson, and from there the police would decide what was important/suspicious.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Did you know there were actually tours of the East End, including it's most degraded streets, by entrepreneurs from the West End, taking wealthy Ladies & Gentry out for a nights entertainment touring Whitechapel?
Journalists never had any problems, day or night, whether it be canvassing the darkest hovels, or the crowded lodging-houses?
I suspect your problem is you read books by modern authors who like to overplay the scene. If you read what was written at the time we don't see anything like what modern authors describe.

Jon,

On one of the previous pages in this thread, you posted Charles Booth's map from 1887, in which Booth describes Dorset Street as: "vicious and semi-criminal". That area was termed: 'the wicked quarter mile'. Common lodging houses of the area were termed: 'Thieves' Kitchens'. These are contemporary accounts/commentary of that area.

Furthermore, we're talking of a man standing around on his own in the middle of the night looking like he has something worth taking. 'Not groups of journalists or tours in broad daylight.

But, I am curious about your 'wealthy nights out' in Whitechapel. Can you post a link to a source please, not only because I'd like to be able to scrutinise your claim but it will be an interesting read also.

[Aethelwulf]

Ok, so that's assuming AK was as aggressive minded as Hutch. I mean if AK was like many Gentry, just a wimp, he may be too scared, not one for confrontation, and be worried if Hutch started to follow them.
So, we have Hutch as assertive, and AK is a wimp, does that make AK a figment?

I think there has to be the possibility that this was not a chance encounter on Aman's part. Following the greatly increased police presence after the double event it may have been the case that the ripper was forced to abandon any ideas of similar street attacks, and conceived the idea of going indoors. Perhaps he had in some way selected Kelly during October and was looking for a way to gain her confidence, by way of appearing wealthy and less threatening. Perhaps the Lord Mayor's Show the next day provided the pretext for his outfit in some way (e.g., 'I'm in town for the show, have you got a bed - 'you will be comfortable'). Although Aman comes across as passive/wimp in the encounter with Hutch, perhaps this is out of necessity as any confrontation could have drawn onlookers and even police, and then his one chance with Kelly is gone.

I tend to think Aman was JtR, but I also think that Lawende and Schwartz saw the ripper for those murders. That leaves the possibility that the ripper deliberately tried to change his appearance to gain Kelly's trust. Although not quite the same, didn't Bundy do something similar e.g., have crutches and a sling to appear non-threatening and gain trust. Wasn't he also known to one of the victims as officer roseland, although I don't know if he impersonated a copper. If the ripper was 'dressing up' so-to-speak, this would have an impact on suspects as JtR would have needed access to a good sum of money. Whereas it would be easy for someone with money to dress down 'shabby genteel', it would be pretty much impossible for a relatively poor man (e.g., Koz) to dress up as Aman.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

This is Hutchinson's statement:

One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else.

He actually tells you he saw "no one else". He didn't say: "and I saw no other suspicious people". You cannot possibly construe that to mean he is talking merely of suspicious people unless of course you have a theory which necessitates Hutchinson saw someone else but didn't mention it (I'm guessing you have the respectably dressed man in mind).

And, while I'm not privy to police procedure in 1888, my guess would be that the police would want to know everything seen by Hutchinson, and from there the police would decide what was important/suspicious.

FM,

I'm not too concerned with the actual words he used. The statement is in truth written down by the interviewing officer, so whether the words are verbatim or not will never be known. Though it is expected the officer does not change the intent, by that I mean some witnesses can ramble on, whereas an interviewing officer knows to keep each statement brief and to the point, yet not change the meaning of the words of the witness. He knows this document is expected to be used in court.

So, that said, the officer already knows Dorset St. is busy all hours of the day & night. We know from the inquest that Sarah Lewis passed along in full view of Hutchinson (I'm assuming we agree her loiterer was Hutch?). We also know that Mary Cox came along back home by 3:00, and that there were several people standing on the corner of Dorset St. outside the Britannia, in full view of anyone entering or leaving Dorset St.
McCarthy's shop was still open, and Bowyer saw a man in the court as he went for water about 3:00am.

Yet, we have Hutchinson saying "no one else", so we must conclude there is a reason for this. We know it is not specifically true, but it was apparently not challenged by Badham, so we may ask 'why'?
We have to apply common sense, not simply resort to throwing around accusations of "lying".

At no point in this series of crimes did the police seriously consider that a woman was responsible for these mutilations. We must ask ourselves if Badham was told about the women but he waved off their presence as irrelevant, the streets being busy with loose women shuffling back & forth all night long, then this must be the reason he did not include them in the words of Hutchinson.

However, we know Badham would be very interested in whether Hutchinson saw any men coming and going throughout his vigil, and that is what we read.

Let me just add this...
Several years ago I had this same exchange with another member. Back then I found a statement in the papers by Cadoche, when he left Hanbury st. he said he saw no-one about (ie; Hanbury street was empty?).
It turned out in another press interview that what he actually said was "there was no-one in the street, except a few women, and men going to work". (paraphrase).
It just goes to show that even when a witness does see other people. Their words are not always used verbatim, that there are times when judgement is applied by a third-party which at the time seems quite reasonable, but may convey the wrong impression - the fact was, at about 5:30'ish, as Cadoche left his home Hanbury street was not empty.

[Abby Normal]

Ok, but what makes it 'obviously wrong', given as Hutch says the same thing?

One source confirms the other.

hey wicky
because when ALL the other papers report it as lewis seeing a couple pass up the road and only ONE paper says the couple went up the court, then that paper is obviously wrong.

and hutch dosnt corroberate the erroneous paper any way-mary and aman (according to him) had already gone into the court and disapeared into her room, and he had taken up his vigil watching and waiting when lewis came along, so it would have been impossible for her to see the same couple.

now i know weve been over this a million times and youve "invented" (haha that word again) a scenario which makes it possible for both hutch and lewis to both see mary and aman go into millers court, but i dont buy it and no one else on this site does either. so lets just agree to agree that your wrong. ; )

Now that we have the fictitious aman and his jaunt with mary out of the way, lets talk about something really interesting-the infamous and shady, but very real, Bethnal Green Botherer. we dont even need kennedy for this either. Here is a man trying to get women to accompany him to a secluded place, he fits the general description of many witnesses, hes scared lewis to the point that she runs away from him and is wary of him, possibly threatening them with a knife ("what the ladys dont like"), and is lurking about the immediate area of the murders.

Heres my speculation/questions re the BGB- Lewis has seen him twice and interacted with him, so he knows her. Did he watch where she went and follow her at distance? was he about millers court in the middle of the night? Did Mary perhaps go out after Blotchy and run into this character? was the BGB jack the ripper?

I know who I believe re shady characters about that night and Ill take lewis over hutch any day, which makes the BGB infinitely more interesting to me than Aman as a suspect for the ripper.

[Fleetwood Mac]

FM,

I'm not too concerned with the actual words he used. The statement is in truth written down by the interviewing officer, so whether the words are verbatim or not will never be known.

Then you may as well say no statement is of value.

So, that said, the officer already knows Dorset St. is busy all hours of the day & night. We know from the inquest that Sarah Lewis passed along in full view of Hutchinson (I'm assuming we agree her loiterer was Hutch?).

No, I don't necessarily agree Lewis's loiterer was George Hutchinson. Hutchinson is unequivocal in terms of whom he did see, and Lewis isn't one of them.

'Interesting that you do not believe Hutchinson's words should be taken as read but you do believe Lewis's words should be taken as read. So, which is it? "Whether the words are verbatim or not we will never be know" or we pick and choose whose statement is gospel?

It's pretty clear to me, Jon, you have a theory and so you're crowbarring these statements around that theory.

The simple fact is that Hutchinson states he did not see Lewis, while Lewis states the man with the wideawake is looking up the court while Lewis walks into the court. The logical deduction is that either one of these two has their time out or at least one of them is lying.

We have to apply common sense, not simply resort to throwing around accusations of "lying".

The rest of your post is making assumptions and huge leaps of faith as opposed to 'applying common sense'.

The statements given by these two people tell us that they can't both be right.

[Wickerman]

Right, there may be more mileage in debating BGB/Britannia-man, but in your typical 'bull-in-a-china-shop' approach you've already dismissed one of the witnesses who may have seen the BGB man in the court, and that was Bowyer.
So, lets not be so anxious to cast every singular press report as "tattle", and instead just study what may have been going on in those hours leading up to the murder.


Re, Lewis & Hutch...
It appears you're not too clear on the events as they happened that night.

Lewis did NOT see Hutchinson in Dorset St. as she was walking along, NOT until she herself reached the passage - it was then she first noticed him standing opposite looking up the court.
So naturally she didn't connect his loitering to the couple that had already walked up the passage.

Lewis said there was a couple, on ahead, and they walked up the court.
She never mentioned seeing Hutch, not yet.

However long it took her to reach the court herself, a few seconds?, it doesn't matter, but she only saw Hutch looking up the passage when she reached it herself.
Lewis didn't connect him looking up the passage, and the couple walking, because they had disappeared before she herself had got there.
So she never said Hutch was already standing there looking up an empty passage before the couple got there, she never said that.

There's just no way a Tuesday morning paper is going to place a couple walking up the court (re: Lewis), a day and a half before the Wednesday evening press release Hutchinsons statement, which includes him watching Kelly & AK walk up the court.
They are independent sources released at different times.

........, lets talk about something really interesting-the infamous and shady, but very real, Bethnal Green Botherer. we dont even need kennedy for this either. Here is a man trying to get women to accompany him to a secluded place, he fits the general description of many witnesses, hes scared lewis to the point that she runs away from him and is wary of him, possibly threatening them with a knife ("what the ladys dont like"), and is lurking about the immediate area of the murders.

Heres my speculation/questions re the BGB- Lewis has seen him twice and interacted with him, so he knows her. Did he watch where she went and follow her at distance? was he about millers court in the middle of the night? Did Mary perhaps go out after Blotchy and run into this character? was the BGB jack the ripper?

I know who I believe re shady characters about that night and Ill take lewis over hutch any day, which makes the BGB infinitely more interesting to me than Aman as a suspect for the ripper.

After Lewis & Kennedy had been accosted on Wednesday evening, we read of a similar character in the court that evening, he's typically referred to as "Collar & Cuffs", but his presence was observed by Bowyer.

Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.
Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.

The question that should be asked is, was Kennedy followed home by this character, and that maybe where he first made acquaintance with Kelly?
The absence of a 'black bag' may rule him out, but we don't know what the passage of time was between the accosting in Bethnal Green Rd. and this appearance in Millers Court. He may have been somewhere else in between time especially as Kennedy tells us a Gentleman intercepted the BGB man which permitted the girls to make their escape. Maybe he dispensed with the bag after that?

[Wickerman]

Jon,

On one of the previous pages in this thread, you posted Charles Booth's map from 1887, in which Booth describes Dorset Street as: "vicious and semi-criminal". That area was termed: 'the wicked quarter mile'. Common lodging houses of the area were termed: 'Thieves' Kitchens'. These are contemporary accounts/commentary of that area.

Absolutely, we have no disagreement on that point. Some even describe the lowest lodging-houses as harbouring; thieves, murderers, and prostitutes. Yes, I am well aware. What writers of the time do not emphasize is that you take your life in your hands going down these back-streets.
Murderer's are said to be lodging there, not because they murdered someone in Whitechapel, but because they are fleeing justice from somewhere outside, and have come to the East End where they can hide among the millions of destitute and become invisible.

The distinction being, (if) murderer's (are) residing in Dorset St., it does not mean you risk your life walking down Dorset St. They are in hiding, not trying to attract attention.

Furthermore, we're talking of a man standing around on his own in the middle of the night looking like he has something worth taking. 'Not groups of journalists or tours in broad daylight.

That's a composite picture. It is Hutchinson who is standing around, and he does not strike a wealthy pose. Astrachan was, apparently?, minding his own business walking up Commercial St., possibly on his way home? Commercial St., like Whitechapel Road is wide open and seemingly safe. Why wouldn't it be?
We shouldn't mix apples & oranges.
Journalists, as far as I know did not go around in groups. They worked alone for the most part, day or night. Why would a newspaper pay a group to go together when as individuals they are needed (and were hired) to cover the city? - that wouldn't make good business sense. These local newspapers operated on a shoestring budget, one, maybe two, covering the crime in the East End.

But, I am curious about your 'wealthy nights out' in Whitechapel. Can you post a link to a source please, not only because I'd like to be able to scrutinise your claim but it will be an interesting read also.

There's one account in Fishman's East End 1888 (quoted from the East London Observer), but this topic was covered here on Casebook some years back. I'm pretty sure it was Gareth (Sam Flynn) who joined me in trying to demonstrate with quotes & links that 'Slumming' was a 'thing' in the East End of that time. Wealthy West Enders would come down to the East End, as individuals or in groups, for an entertaining weekend, rent a hotel room and sample the rowdy sex and drunken nights. There's also a couple of cases in Fishman's book on that too.
It's all here on Casebook, I don't keep a file of these things, as a subject they pop up every now and then.

[Wickerman]

'Interesting that you do not believe Hutchinson's words should be taken as read but you do believe Lewis's words should be taken as read.

You never asked me, you've made another assumption which turns out to be wrong.
I have a wide range of press reports on Lewis's testimony at the inquest. So, I know the words attributed to her are a mixture of verbatim and 3rd person narratives.
I could have made that clear if you had asked.

The simple fact is that Hutchinson states he did not see Lewis, while Lewis states the man with the wideawake is looking up the court while Lewis walks into the court. The logical deduction is that either one of these two has their time out or at least one of them is lying.

Ok, so Hutchinson puts himself in Dorset St. standing opposite Millers Court from roughly 2:15 to 3:00 am. (leaving at 3:00, after a 45 mins vigil).

Sarah Lewis reached Millers Court just before 2:30 (or some will argue at 2:30), and saw a man in Dorset St. standing opposite Millers Court - and you have deduced they cannot be the same man?
How did you manage to work that out?

Hutch tells us there was no-one else, not that he stood there with another man.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner there.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Sarah Lewis reached Millers Court just before 2:30 (or some will argue at 2:30), and saw a man in Dorset St. standing opposite Millers Court - and you have deduced they cannot be the same man?
How did you manage to work that out?

Hutch tells us there was no-one else, not that he stood there with another man.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner there.

Hutch came forward after the inquest Wick, you know that. Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony was already out there that she had seen a man standing opposite the court, but who she could not give a good description of.
Anyone could have come forward and said he was that person.
Regards Darryl

[Fleetwood Mac]

Astrachan was, apparently?, minding his own business walking up Commercial St., possibly on his way home? Commercial St., like Whitechapel Road is wide open and seemingly safe. Why wouldn't it be?

According to Hutchinson, the 'well dressed man' is standing on the corner of Thrawl Street in the middle of the night. In terms of what he is doing there and how long he has been there, we don't know. For every guess you offer, you could offer an alternative such as he had been there for a while looking for a willing woman. Who knows, and it's a redundant debate because it can't be proven either way and nor does it detract from the following: supposedly a man is standing on the corner of Thrawl Street at 2 in the morning on his own looking like he has something worth taking in an area well known for petty crime.

There's one account in Fishman's East End 1888 (quoted from the East London Observer), but this topic was covered here on Casebook some years back. I'm pretty sure it was Gareth (Sam Flynn) who joined me in trying to demonstrate with quotes & links that 'Slumming' was a 'thing' in the East End of that time. Wealthy West Enders would come down to the East End, as individuals or in groups, for an entertaining weekend, rent a hotel room and sample the rowdy sex and drunken nights. There's also a couple of cases in Fishman's book on that too.
It's all here on Casebook, I don't keep a file of these things, as a subject they pop up every now and then.

I don't dispute the phenomenon known as 'slumming'. It doesn't follow that it was usual for 'well dressed men' to be in and around Dorset Street and Thrawl Street on their own in the middle of the night, however.

Thanks for the link by the way, Jon. I'll have a look.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sarah Lewis reached Millers Court just before 2:30 (or some will argue at 2:30), and saw a man in Dorset St. standing opposite Millers Court - and you have deduced they cannot be the same man?

Hutchinson tells you whom he saw while keeping vigil. He did not see Sarah Lewis.

Hutchinson states:

One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else.

Sarah Lewis is clearly not mentioned by Hutchinson. According to Lewis, the man was looking up the court as Lewis went into the court. How does he not see her?

I did not say "they cannot be the same man"; I said "I don't necessarily believe they were the same man". You could always try and explain this glaring contradiction away by claiming Hutchinson simply forgot seeing Lewis. It is possible and I wouldn't rule it out, but then again I wouldn't rule out God knocking on my door for a cup of tea in the next few hours.

With all of these statements, we're left to take away from them that which is probable.

Hutchinson tells us whom he did see. In Hutchinson's own words, Sarah Lewis isn't one of them. Sarah Lewis tells us that the man in the wideawake was looking up the court as she walked into the court. In the event we take these two statements to be a reasonably accurate recollection of events that night, then in all probability Hutchinson was not the man in the wideawake hat.

The aforementioned is taken from their statements. What I'm about to say is guesswork and so I don't hang my hat on either of these but they are possibilities without supporting source material:

1) One of them has their time out. Possibly Lewis, and she is walking through the court at around 3am. Hutchinson has departed by then and the man in the wideawake hat is looking up the court around that time.

2) At least one of them is lying. I don't necessarily have an opinion as to which one, but what may point in favour of Lewis being the more trustworthy of the two is that no one can verify Hutchinson being there, whereas Mrs Keyler can verify Lewis arriving at her lodging and roughly at what time.

[Sunny Delight]

Hutch came forward after the inquest Wick, you know that. Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony was already out there that she had seen a man standing opposite the court, but who she could not give a good description of.
Anyone could have come forward and said he was that person.
Regards Darryl

So in order to pass himself off as the man Lewis referred too he doesn't mention seeing her. Also he comes forward at 6pm on the Monday night- Lewis gives her testimony that morning. It isn't as if there was a journalist tweeting from inside the courtroom giving an up to date account of what was going on and Hutchinson was able to check his twitter account to see it.

[Sunny Delight]

Hutchinson tells you whom he saw while keeping vigil. He did not see Sarah Lewis.

Hutchinson states:

One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else.

Sarah Lewis is clearly not mentioned by Hutchinson. According to Lewis, the man was looking up the court as Lewis went into the court. How does he not see her?

I did not say "they cannot be the same man"; I said "I don't necessarily believe they were the same man". You could always try and explain this glaring contradiction away by claiming Hutchinson simply forgot seeing Lewis. It is possible and I wouldn't rule it out, but then again I wouldn't rule out God knocking on my door for a cup of tea in the next few hours.

With all of these statements, we're left to take away from them that which is probable.

Hutchinson tells us whom he did see. In Hutchinson's own words, Sarah Lewis isn't one of them. Sarah Lewis tells us that the man in the wideawake was looking up the court as she walked into the court. In the event we take these two statements to be a reasonably accurate recollection of events that night, then in all probability Hutchinson was not the man in the wideawake hat.

The aforementioned is taken from their statements. What I'm about to say is guesswork and so I don't hang my hat on either of these but they are possibilities without supporting source material:

1) One of them has their time out. Possibly Lewis, and she is walking through the court at around 3am. Hutchinson has departed by then and the man in the wideawake hat is looking up the court around that time.

2) At least one of them is lying. I don't necessarily have an opinion as to which one, but what may point in favour of Lewis being the more trustworthy of the two is that no one can verify Hutchinson being there, whereas Mrs Keyler can verify Lewis arriving at her lodging and roughly at what time.

I think the most likely is that Hutchinson was stood opposite the Court at 2:30am as he said. Lewis saw him standing looking up the court as if waiting on someone. Why he didn't mention Lewis is unclear, Lewis also mentioned a man and a woman further on. Hutchinson doesn't mention these two either and I don't subscribe to the theory she is describing Kelly and AK man. Why again is unclear. If only Abberline's notes had survived I am sure lots of these questions would have been answered. He may have told Abberline he did see Lewis and this was a reason why Abberline very much believed him. What would be interesting would be comparing what Kelly was said to be wearing earlier in the night and comparing it to Hutchinson's description of what she was wearing.