Hutchinson and Blotchy

[Wickerman]

Funnily enough, I was trawling through a load of press reports last night and came across an article suggesting a witness was well paid for their story. Unfortunately I was looking for something else entirely at the time so don't recall which paper or date it was from.
I'll try and find it again if I get the chance.

Thankyou Joshua, that would be interesting to see why.

[Wickerman]

Given that his very next line is "I came in as soon as it opened in the morning" rather than "I went in...", doesn't this indicate that the interview was conducted in the place where he usually slept?

It's the previous phrase that tells the story.

For him to be interviewed at the Victoria Home, and say to the reporter, "the place where I usually sleep was closed", indicates at the very least he was not living at the Victoria Home on that Friday morning, where we might expect his comment to be something like, "this place was closed".

He then says "I came in....." because the Victoria Home, where he is presumed to be being interviewed, was his new home that he found after walking around Friday night/morning.

[The Macdonald Triad]

By coming forward on his own Hutchinson is a witness, not a suspect and Abberline would have questioned him differently. Also, by saying he did not see Sarah Lewis no connection would be made to her seeing him, and he would still be considered a witness. People were not stupid back then, even Thomas Cutbush who by most accounts was stark raving mad wasn't worried the cops busted him with just a knife sheath as he knew nothing could be done. Never mind his sister had given the knife to the cops earlier he knew exactly how to potentially beat the system.

[Wickerman]

..... Hutchinson waited a few hours after the Inquest closed- no where near enough time to see if anyone else came forward. He could have come forward at 6pm and the real man wearing the wideawake hat could have walked in at 8pm....

This has been a debatable point, had the inquest closed, or not?

(Several evening newspapers provide the details listed below)

We know from the papers the inquest began at 11:00 am, the coroner throws a bit of a tantrum, then the jury are sworn, and taken to see the body in Shoreditch Mortuary (a minutes walk away). After which they walked through the streets to visit the room 13 at Millers Court.
The jurors were taken in, in 'batches' (presumably they couldn't all fit in at once). This viewing was said to have taken 20 minutes, at which point they walked back to the Town Hall.
One report says the Jury returned to the Town Hall after being away for 45 minutes.
On their return a few witnesses were questioned, they broke for lunch,....

On continuation...
The Court was packed, mainly with Jurymen and members of the press.
"Only a few of the public could be admitted, in consequence of the want of space..." (Echo)

The Star reporter left the inquest as Prater was giving her testimony, she was the 5th of 12 witnesses.
So, it may be that by the time Prater stood up, the inquest was not even half over.

We have other accounts where a Star reporter left a scene about 2:30 to make the early evening press release, so did this reporter also leave 'about 2:30'?

Following Prater, we hear from Maxwell, Lewis, and Dr. Phillips. After which they break for another lunch.

At reassembly we hear from VanTurney, Harvey, Beck & Abberline.
The Coroner then makes his summary, followed by the verdict.

How long did all this take?

I have searched through all available newspapers on BNA, yet not one gave a time for termination of the inquest.

Looking at some average times through the sequence of events, the inquest could well have ended somewhere between 5 and 6 o'clock. Or possibly even 6 o'clock itself, the same time Hutchinson sits down to write his statement.

It seems clear from the press that there was precious little room for members of the public. So those who may think Hutchinson was there would have to explain how Abberline, in the same small room couldn't have seen him before he shows up with his statement. Which would invalidate much of his story.

[Wickerman]

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.......

I do find this interesting that you believe Hutchinson's story, as you have mentioned before.
Yet, to my mind it is odd that you do not query who this other couple mentioned by Lewis, could be.

If you accept that Hutchinson saw only one other man entering a lodging-house, and "no-one else". Then Lewis's 'extra couple' are blown out of the water - so to speak. They cannot exist, so there was no other man, as Hutch said.

What alternate conclusion can we reasonably entertain, except to agree that the couple seen by Hutch (AK & Kelly) are the very same as the couple seen by Lewis?

I have never seen how it can be reasonable to throw in an extra couple when Hutch is emphatic there was no-one else.

Surely, the real solution lies in the fact we struggle to solve the timing issue? That being done would solve Lewis being at No.2, Hutch being opposite Millers Court, and Lewis's couple being the same as Hutch's couple (AK & Kelly).

Trying to solve the timing issue has been troublesome throughout these murders, why should it be any different in this case?
The issue of timing is the problem, not Lewis, and not Hutchinson.

[Joshua Rogan]

It's the previous phrase that tells the story.

For him to be interviewed at the Victoria Home, and say to the reporter, "the place where I usually sleep was closed", indicates at the very least he was not living at the Victoria Home on that Friday morning, where we might expect his comment to be something like, "this place was closed".

He then says "I came in....." because the Victoria Home, where he is presumed to be being interviewed, was his new home that he found after walking around Friday night/morning.

I have to disagree, Jon.

Hutchinson had no money when he arrived in Whitechapel, yet the reason he gives for being on the street is that his usual lodgings were already closed, rather than lack of funds. After walking about all night (plus some casual voyeurism) he then "came in as soon as it opened". Since he is presumably still penniless, it's unlikely he could have immediately found new lodgings on credit.

Therefore - unless he got very lucky, mugged someone or turned a few tricks - we can deduce that he had paid in advance for his bed.

[Sunny Delight]

I do find this interesting that you believe Hutchinson's story, as you have mentioned before.
Yet, to my mind it is odd that you do not query who this other couple mentioned by Lewis, could be.

If you accept that Hutchinson saw only one other man entering a lodging-house, and "no-one else". Then Lewis's 'extra couple' are blown out of the water - so to speak. They cannot exist, so there was no other man, as Hutch said.

What alternate conclusion can we reasonably entertain, except to agree that the couple seen by Hutch (AK & Kelly) are the very same as the couple seen by Lewis?

I have never seen how it can be reasonable to throw in an extra couple when Hutch is emphatic there was no-one else.

Surely, the real solution lies in the fact we struggle to solve the timing issue? That being done would solve Lewis being at No.2, Hutch being opposite Millers Court, and Lewis's couple being the same as Hutch's couple (AK & Kelly).

Trying to solve the timing issue has been troublesome throughout these murders, why should it be any different in this case?
The issue of timing is the problem, not Lewis, and not Hutchinson.

I will give you my thoughts on Hutchinson and then deal with Lewis. 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.

So to me mentioning Lewis or the man and woman further on would not have come into the reckoning. I am surmising but I feel Abberline would have clarified if Hutchinson had seen anyone else in the street. Abberline believed him so to my mind he must have told him he did and mentioned both Lewis and the couple.

In regards Lewis and the man and woman further on. I think it ties in with Hutchinson. Hutchinson doesn't mention them as he wasn't asked a question where he would have felt it neccessary to. I think they existed but they were not relevant as he had seen Kelly and the man already enter the Court. At the Inquest Lewis says 'further on there was a man and a woman'. She doesn't say they went up the Court. She may have been asked- did you seen anyone in Dorset Street? She says yes she saw someone when she got to the Court standing opposite looking up it as if waiting for someone. She then says further on there was a man and a woman. They may have just been passing down Dorset Street. That's how I see it.

What many are trying to do is reconcile Hutchinson's statement with Lewis. However most are making the assumption that Hutchinson SHOULD have mentioned the couple further on. That he didn't must then be construed- if we believe him- to Kelly and AK man being those seen by Lewis as otherwise it is inexplicable he didn't mention them. But I think I have shown that doesn't neccessarily need to have been the case.

[Wickerman]

I have to disagree, Jon.

Hutchinson had no money when he arrived in Whitechapel, yet the reason he gives for being on the street is that his usual lodgings were already closed, rather than lack of funds. After walking about all night (plus some casual voyeurism) he then "came in as soon as it opened". Since he is presumably still penniless, it's unlikely he could have immediately found new lodgings on credit.

Therefore - unless he got very lucky, mugged someone or turned a few tricks - we can deduce that he had paid in advance for his bed.

Sorry Joshua, I cannot see how him being pennyless changes the intent of the English language.

We already know that on Monday he is resident at the Victoria Home, the question is, when did he become resident?

In his press story he says that he talked about what he knew about the crime with another lodger "here", yesterday, who advised him to go to police, which he did last night.
This identifies the "here" as being the same as the address he gave on his statement "last night", which was the Victoria Home.
So "here" is the same as "The Victoria Home".

That is just straight forward English.

Therefore, when he is interviewed "here" at the Victorian Home, the day after he gave the statement to police, then for him to say "the place I usually sleep was closed", is clearly not "here", it is somewhere else. The correct phrase to use would be, "this place was closed" if he was living at the Victoria Home.
He is clearly referencing a third-party location which is not "here".


Now, on the the next part of the puzzle.
As it turned out some researchers discovered an advertisement for the Victoria Home, and it turned out that the Home did not close at night.
What the lodgers were expected to do was obtain a pass if they knew they would be late back after 2:00am (I think it was 2:00am). After which time access is limited to residents producing the pass. The Victoria Home was open 24 hours, but other Registered Lodging-Houses were expected to close for cleaning for a few hours, they could choose their own time.
Therefore, we find out the Victoria Home did not close, but access was limited.
Whereas, regular Registered Lodging-Houses did close.

Hutchinson said "my usual place" was closed, not that he didn't have a pass.


Now as to his miraculous 'windfall', he didn't need one.

On Friday morning, perhaps 5:00am?, he appears to have gone to the Victoria Home, but he doesn't need a room that minute, what he needs now is work. So probably to put his name down for Friday night.
Which means he has all day (12 hrs) to earn some cash before the rooms begin to fill at something like 5-6:00 pm Friday night and lodgers need to put their money down to rent a bed.
Needless to say he likely worked at the local market on Saturday & Sunday, but that's not an issue here.

I think we are bound to follow the intent of the words used in the press article, as if not we just create other problems.

[Wickerman]

..... but other Registered Lodging-Houses were expected to close for cleaning for a few hours, they could choose their own time.

We have Wilkinson at the Eddowes inquest telling the court they (Cooneys, in Flower & Dean St.) closed about 2:30 - 3:00.

"They generally closed at 2:30 or 3."
Times, 5 Oct. 1888

So probably to put his name down for Friday night.
Which means he has all day (12 hrs) to earn some cash before the rooms begin to fill at something like 5-6:00 pm Friday night and lodgers need to put their money down to rent a bed....

Likewise, Wilkinson tells us he handed out beds around 7:30 pm.

"...and..(John Kelly).. said he wanted a single bed. That was about 7.30 in the evening. A single bed is 4d, and a double 8d".
Daily Telegraph, 5 Oct. 1888.

Which appears to help us understand a lodger only hands money over in the evening, for a bed that same night.

[Wickerman]

I will give you my thoughts on Hutchinson and then deal with Lewis. 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.

So to me mentioning Lewis or the man and woman further on would not have come into the reckoning. I am surmising but I feel Abberline would have clarified if Hutchinson had seen anyone else in the street. Abberline believed him so to my mind he must have told him he did and mentioned both Lewis and the couple.

Agreed, and I'm happy to see that you think he is responding to questions, that would be natural. There are even extra details that surface which would only be as a result of being questioned.

In regards Lewis and the man and woman further on. I think it ties in with Hutchinson. Hutchinson doesn't mention them as he wasn't asked a question where he would have felt it neccessary to. I think they existed but they were not relevant as he had seen Kelly and the man already enter the Court. At the Inquest Lewis says 'further on there was a man and a woman'.

What I think is necessary is that we look at Lewis's testimony the same way you analyzed Hutch's press interview.

At the inquest Sarah Lewis was responding to questions. She did not merely relay a continuous story. Witnesses are generally quiet, they are instructed by the Court Officer to only speak when spoken to, and keep their answers limited to the question being asked. This is even true today.

When we look at her testimony, the original court version, it was taken down in long-hand by (I think?) Mr Hodgkinson, the deputy.

Lewis is told to give her name, address, & occupation, which she does. She is then asked a question where she explains that she knows Mrs Keylar, and was at her house at 2:30am. That she knew the time by the Spitalfields clock...etc.
Following this we see a dash "--" after which the subject changes.
The dash "--" represents, in most cases a question. Either from the coroner or the Jury, what follows is then her reply.
The actual questions were not recorded in the official record.

So, following a question, we read:
"When I went in the Court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset St. standing alone by the lodging house."
"he was not tall"
-- "but stout"
-- "had on a wideawake black hat"
-- "I did not notice his clothes"

We can see by the short dash separating various replies that she answered several questions concerning the appearance of this man. After "his clothes" in the previous line, several press versions add extra information not recorded by Mr. Hodgkinson.

The original version continues.....
we see another dash "--", then she mentions this couple.

-- "another man with a woman passed along".

It appears she had been asked if there was anyone else in the street (besides the man standing opposite).
Which caused her to mention this couple walking along.
If you notice, she doesn't say where they were. We must look to the press for that information.

---------------

As I mentioned before, following "his clothes", we see the Daily Telegraph add:
"The man was looking up the court, he seemed to be waiting, or looking for someone".

(Then we must pause for the same question) - "was there anyone else in the street?"

The D.T. add:
"Further on there was a man and a woman, the latter being in drink".

----------------

Now we can look at how the Daily News covers this part of her testimony.
Following on from the description of the man standing opposite - but no mention of "his clothes".
We read: "He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for someone".

(This is where we add the question) "was there anyone else in the street?"

Here, the D.N. add:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court".

----------------

Now we look at the Morning Post, see what they say:
Following the same description of the man standing opposite....we read:
"He was looking up the court and seemed to be waiting for someone"

(This is where we add the question) "was there anyone else in the street?"

Here, the M.P. reply in the 3rd person:
"She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink".

-----------------

We cannot be sure if any versions use her own words. They all appear to be paraphrase to varying degrees.


Also, there doesn't seem to be any reason to interpret the Daily Telegraph's "further on" as meaning beyond Hutchinson.
In fact Hutchinson's own words rule that out.
Simply "further on" is ahead of Lewis, on the same side of the street, which fits the context.
She is saying there was also another man (besides the loiterer) but this one was with a woman. And, they were between Lewis & Millers court, or at least visible by Lewis, whether walking or standing in the street.

Lewis mentioned the loiterer first (before the couple), because that was the question she was asked.
Not because the loiterer was nearer, and the couple further away.
"Further on" meant further on ahead of Lewis, but not beyond Millers Court because she tells us the couple then went up the court, not passed the court.
In fact, in the original court record she does say she had not seen the loiterer 'until' she reached the court herself. So, she had to have seen the couple before-hand, on her way towards the court, and before she saw the loiterer (Hutchinson).

Sorry, this went on longer than it should have, it's just the sequence is inherent in the various reports once we look at them together.

[Sunny Delight]

Agreed, and I'm happy to see that you think he is responding to questions, that would be natural. There are even extra details that surface which would only be as a result of being questioned.




What I think is necessary is that we look at Lewis's testimony the same way you analyzed Hutch's press interview.

At the inquest Sarah Lewis was responding to questions. She did not merely relay a continuous story. Witnesses are generally quiet, they are instructed by the Court Officer to only speak when spoken to, and keep their answers limited to the question being asked. This is even true today.

When we look at her testimony, the original court version, it was taken down in long-hand by (I think?) Mr Hodgkinson, the deputy.

Lewis is told to give her name, address, & occupation, which she does. She is then asked a question where she explains that she knows Mrs Keylar, and was at her house at 2:30am. That she knew the time by the Spitalfields clock...etc.
Following this we see a dash "--" after which the subject changes.
The dash "--" represents, in most cases a question. Either from the coroner or the Jury, what follows is then her reply.
The actual questions were not recorded in the official record.

So, following a question, we read:
"When I went in the Court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset St. standing alone by the lodging house."
"he was not tall"
-- "but stout"
-- "had on a wideawake black hat"
-- "I did not notice his clothes"

We can see by the short dash separating various replies that she answered several questions concerning the appearance of this man. After "his clothes" in the previous line, several press versions add extra information not recorded by Mr. Hodgkinson.

The original version continues.....
we see another dash "--", then she mentions this couple.

-- "another man with a woman passed along".

It appears she had been asked if there was anyone else in the street (besides the man standing opposite).
Which caused her to mention this couple walking along.
If you notice, she doesn't say where they were. We must look to the press for that information.

---------------

As I mentioned before, following "his clothes", we see the Daily Telegraph add:
"The man was looking up the court, he seemed to be waiting, or looking for someone".

(Then we must pause for the same question) - "was there anyone else in the street?"

The D.T. add:
"Further on there was a man and a woman, the latter being in drink".

----------------

Now we can look at how the Daily News covers this part of her testimony.
Following on from the description of the man standing opposite - but no mention of "his clothes".
We read: "He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for someone".

(This is where we add the question) "was there anyone else in the street?"

Here, the D.N. add:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court".

----------------

Now we look at the Morning Post, see what they say:
Following the same description of the man standing opposite....we read:
"He was looking up the court and seemed to be waiting for someone"

(This is where we add the question) "was there anyone else in the street?"

Here, the M.P. reply in the 3rd person:
"She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink".

-----------------

We cannot be sure if any versions use her own words. They all appear to be paraphrase to varying degrees.


Also, there doesn't seem to be any reason to interpret the Daily Telegraph's "further on" as meaning beyond Hutchinson.
In fact Hutchinson's own words rule that out.
Simply "further on" is ahead of Lewis, on the same side of the street, which fits the context.
She is saying there was also another man (besides the loiterer) but this one was with a woman. And, they were between Lewis & Millers court, or at least visible by Lewis, whether walking or standing in the street.

Lewis mentioned the loiterer first (before the couple), because that was the question she was asked.
Not because the loiterer was nearer, and the couple further away.
"Further on" meant further on ahead of Lewis, but not beyond Millers Court because she tells us the couple then went up the court, not passed the court.
In fact, in the original court record she does say she had not seen the loiterer 'until' she reached the court herself. So, she had to have seen the couple before-hand, on her way towards the court, and before she saw the loiterer (Hutchinson).

Sorry, this went on longer than it should have, it's just the sequence is inherent in the various reports once we look at them together.

I can't agree Wickerman. The questioning seems to be fairly straightforward at the Inquest.

Coroner: Did you see anyone in Dorset Street?

Lewis: When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house.

Coroner: What did this man look like?

Lewis: He was not tall but stout and had on a black wideawake hat.

Coroner: How was this man dressed?

Lewis: I did not notice his clothes.

Coroner: Was there anyone else in the street?

Lewis: Another young man with a woman passed along.

Coroner: What was the man you previously described doing?

Lewis: The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

[Wickerman]

I can't agree Wickerman. The questioning seems to be fairly straightforward at the Inquest.

Coroner: Did you see anyone in Dorset Street?

Lewis: When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house.

Coroner: What did this man look like?

Lewis: He was not tall but stout and had on a black wideawake hat.

Coroner: How was this man dressed?

Lewis: I did not notice his clothes.

Coroner: Was there anyone else in the street?

Lewis: Another young man with a woman passed along.

Coroner: What was the man you previously described doing?

Lewis: The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

Yes, no debate here, the sequence I posted was not opinion, it was directly from the reports. Just the same as above.

The only speculation was what were the actual words used in the question? (ie; "was there anyone else in the street?").

- It is a fact Lewis was first asked about seeing the man opposite the court, that is why she was called to testify.
But, she says she only saw him as she entered the passage (reached the court).
Therefore, the next question is backtracking, in other words - 'was there anyone else in the street' as you approached the passage? (ie, before you noticed the man opposite).

That is the key to understanding her role.

She did not see him as she walked along Dorset St. heading for the Court, only this couple - further ahead.

Once the couple turned up the passage, Lewis, following on behind eventually reached the same point, to enter the passage, and then and only then did she notice this man opposite.

Anyway, if you understand the sequence that I see evolving, you might see why I say the actual timing (the 'times' estimated by Lewis & Hutch) is not relevant.
We have had debates on 'Timing' in the Eddowes case, in the Chapman case, and more so in the Stride case.
One thing we have learned, the stated times are not reliable. We must pay more attention to the sequence of events.

[Wickerman]

Funnily enough, I was trawling through a load of press reports last night and came across an article suggesting a witness was well paid for their story. Unfortunately I was looking for something else entirely at the time so don't recall which paper or date it was from.
I'll try and find it again if I get the chance.

Hi Joshua.
It just occurred to me last night, perhaps you were thinking about Lawende, the City police hid him away in a hotel, all expenses paid.
The article I read makes no mention of a cash payment though.

[Wickerman]

It took me a while to find this. I couldn't remember the name of the paper.

Here is what may be the source of the idea that Hutchinson was paid a fee.

This is from the Wheeling Register, 19 Nov. 1888.

In the second half of this article we read:
"Some clever individual having invented a detailed description of the man seen walking about with Mary Kelly, just before she was murdered, has been hired at five times his usual salary to walk about with the police, and try to see the man again..."



At the time this was discovered, a group of anti-Hutchinson posters promoted this American newspaper story as suggesting Hutchinson had been paid "five times his usual salary".

Hutchinson was unemployed, he had no salary.
This article more likely speaks of an artist who had drawn a likeness of Astrachan. It was the artist who had been paid five times his usual salary.

This is not evidence of Hutchinson being paid by the police.

[The Macdonald Triad]

It took me a while to find this. I couldn't remember the name of the paper.

Here is what may be the source of the idea that Hutchinson was paid a fee.

This is from the Wheeling Register, 19 Nov. 1888.

In the second half of this article we read:
"Some clever individual having invented a detailed description of the man seen walking about with Mary Kelly, just before she was murdered, has been hired at five times his usual salary to walk about with the police, and try to see the man again..."



At the time this was discovered, a group of anti-Hutchinson posters promoted this American newspaper story as suggesting Hutchinson had been paid "five times his usual salary".

Hutchinson was unemployed, he had no salary.
This article more likely speaks of an artist who had drawn a likeness of Astrachan. It was the artist who had been paid five times his usual salary.

This is not evidence of Hutchinson being paid by the police.

"More likely speaks" you're splitting every hair you can yet you or no one really knows. The preponderance of the evidence however says the article is of Hutchinson.