George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[Curious Cat]

I initially posted about this in the Help On Some Details thread but the conversation seems to have gone on a tangent and its got a little lost in there, so to be able to explore it further I've brought here.

The assumption appears to have been that the man and woman Sarah Lewis saw in Dorset Street were walking ahead of her and she was behind them. What if they were actually walking towards her? She notes a man standing opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, apparently looking down it and seeming waiting for something or someone. She then said the couple were further on from her position - this means the left side of the man who was in line with the court passage, so this couple must have been on the west side of the entrance to Miller's Court when Lewis observed them. However, she says nothing to point which direction they were walking. If they were the other side of the entrance to Miller's Court then she didn't necessarily either follow them or pass them as she went into the passage, which would also explain her saying that there was no-one in the court. The couple either turned into the passage after Lewis or they passed it altogether and carried on down Dorset Street toward Commercial Street on the east side.

She had already passed Britannia Man before turning into Dorset Street.

Hutchinson said he watched Astrachan man with Mary Kelly while stood by the lamp outside the Queen's Head pub. Prior to this he said Astrachan man approached Mary in Commercial Street from the opposite direction she was walking, which was toward Thrawl Street. Hutchinson had already had his exchange with Mary south of the corner of Flower & Dean Street and had parted company to continue his walk northwards up Commercial Street. This means Astrachan came along from the south behind Hutchinson.

Hutchinson then watches Astrachan and Mary and partly hears their conversation, but at no point does he say when he moved from the corner of Flower and Dean Street to the Queen's Head pub. If he simply carried on to the Queen's Head after parting from Mary, his back would have been turned away from her meeting Astrachan. For him to see Astrachan approach, tap Mary on the shoulder and see him putting his hand around her shoulder Hutchinson must have stopped to watch Mary walk away toward Thrawl Street before Astrachan came along. He did not initially resume his walk up Commercial Street but at some point goes from closely observing Mary and Astrachan from the corner of Flower and Dean Street to then walk away and then stop at the Queen's Head to watch Astrachan from a longer distance. Mary and Astrachan then come up Commercial Street and pass him, so Hutchinson takes a closer look before following them into Dorset Street. Hutchinson makes no mention of Mary being drunk.

Hutchinson shadows Sarah Lewis' account at key points. She saw a woman talking to the man she'd previously seen in Bethnal Green by a pub in Commercial Street...Hutchinson watches Mary Kelly talking to Astrachan man by a pub in Commercial Street. Sarah Lewis sees a couple in Dorset Street as she approaches Miller's Court...Hutchinson watches/follows Mary Kelly and Astrachan man as they go along Dorset Street and then go into Miller's Court. Sarah Lewis sees a man hanging around opposite the entrance to Miller's Court...Hutchinson says he waited for some 45 minutes opposite the entrance to Miller's Court. Sarah Lewis didn't see a policeman. Hutchinson didn't see a policeman.

Could Sarah Lewis have actually seen Hutchinson talking to Mary on her way to Dorset Street as she says she saw the man talking with a woman near The Britannia, not actually outside or by it? Or maybe the woman wasn't Mary Kelly and he never saw her at all that night. Is it possible Hutchinson shadowed Sarah Lewis's statement to place himself further down the road and slightly later to discount him being Britannia Man, and therefore also discount him from being the Bethnal Green botherer, as Lewis identifies them as being one and the same?

Is Hutchinson placing himself in the area at that time - using Sarah Lewis's statement as a template - to grab an opportunity to give himself an alibi for something else? Could this explain why he didn't go to the police sooner?



I'm not pinning anything definitively on Hutchinson, just thinking out loud and exploring possibilities.

[Wickerman]

....
Could Sarah Lewis have actually seen Hutchinson talking to Mary on her way to Dorset Street as she says she saw the man talking with a woman near The Britannia, not actually outside or by it?

Hi Cat.
I did see your previous post on the other thread, but wasn't sure what sort of theory you were outlining.

Is Hutchinson placing himself in the area at that time - using Sarah Lewis's statement as a template - to grab an opportunity to give himself an alibi for something else? Could this explain why he didn't go to the police sooner?

How could Hutch have obtained Lewis's statement "sooner"?
Maybe I'm not following your thinking here, but you seem to be saying Hutch knew Lewis's statement in advance so he could plan to avoid the inquest?

This sequence of events must, in my view, follow some basic assumptions. Without any statements to the contrary it seems Lewis didn't know Hutchinson, and Hutchinson did not know Lewis.

I'm assuming the loiterer is Hutch, so he is present when Lewis walks down Dorset street, he doesn't mention her because she is just another streetwalker (perhaps his assumption?), and they are just part of the nightlife.

In my view Hutchinson has no cause to even believe this woman (Lewis) will be called to an inquest. Hutch does not know what she saw (the Britannia-man), and what she heard (scream of murder'), so on what grounds would he attempt to embed himself in her story when he doesn't know what her story is, or even if a coroner will be interested in her story.

The whole premise for Hutch trying to copy Lewis's story was invented by those who need to maintain the modern claim that Hutchinson is a liar.

What we do have is, two independent witnesses (Hutch & Lewis) both claiming to see a man & woman together in Dorset street, both claim the woman was 'the worse for drink', both claim they walked up the court.
Cox said Mary was not wearing a hat that night, and Lewis said the female was hatless.
Both say the couple they watched did not remain outside, after they entered the court.
Both stories corroborate each other.

[Sunny Delight]

I see Hutchinson as an honest, legitimate witness. He claims to be coming by thrawl street at 2am(about 2am, he fixed the time at 1:55am as he passed the clock)- he runs into Mary Kelly. Say he is just 3 minutes wrong in his timing. That is 2:03am. They speak for a moment or two- say 1 minute in. That is 2:04. He walks on and turns back to see a man he had passed tap Kelly on the shoulder and say something to her. Say this takes 2 minutes. That is 2:06am. Hutchinson walks on and stands outside the pub watching them as they approach. Say this takes 2 minutes and they walk down Dorset street which takes another 2 minutes. That is 2:10am. They stand at the corner of the court for 3 minutes approximately. Say it is between 3-5 minutes. That is 2:15am at most. Lewis says she was in Kelyers for 2:30 as she heard the clock. Now if she heard the quarter hour strike or even if she was walking towards Miller's Court at 2:15am(she was IN Kelyers at 2:30am)then it is possible she witnessed Kelly and Aman walk up the court and then saw Hutch across the street as she got closer. Plausable scenario? Maybe? I know it is convuluted and it takes some liberties with timings but the nature of estimating time in that era gives you some license for that.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Hutch is one of my top three suspects. His outlandish description of AM down to the littlest detail is far fetched but was not recognized as such as criminal profiling was non existent at the time.
He only came forward after the inquest testimony placed him there. For all we know he may of thought he was recognized or he may have even had another contact with someone we don't know about and that was too much for him so he 'covered his arse.'

[Darryl Kenyon]

both claim they walked up the court.
.

Sarah lewis inquest testimony - another young man with a woman passed along. Or - Further on there was a man and woman.
Wick where does this say - walked up the court please?
Your interpretation is passed along up the court, or further on up the court.
My interpretation is passed along up the street, or further on up the street.
Interpretations, not facts.
Regards Darryl.

[Sam Flynn]

Wick where does this say - walked up the court please?

A couple of mentions in the press, which fly in the face of more logical and coherent accounts of what transpired in all the other reports, and which directly contradict Sarah Lewis's saying - quite clearly - that there was no one in the Court.

[DJA]

I see Hutchinson as an honest, legitimate witness. He claims to be coming by thrawl street at 2am(about 2am, he fixed the time at 1:55am as he passed the clock)- he runs into Mary Kelly. Say he is just 3 minutes wrong in his timing. That is 2:03am. They speak for a moment or two- say 1 minute in. That is 2:04. He walks on and turns back to see a man he had passed tap Kelly on the shoulder and say something to her. Say this takes 2 minutes. That is 2:06am. Hutchinson walks on and stands outside the pub watching them as they approach. Say this takes 2 minutes and they walk down Dorset street which takes another 2 minutes. That is 2:10am. They stand at the corner of the court for 3 minutes approximately. Say it is between 3-5 minutes. That is 2:15am at most. Lewis says she was in Kelyers for 2:30 as she heard the clock. Now if she heard the quarter hour strike or even if she was walking towards Miller's Court at 2:15am(she was IN Kelyers at 2:30am)then it is possible she witnessed Kelly and Aman walk up the court and then saw Hutch across the street as she got closer. Plausable scenario? Maybe? I know it is convuluted and it takes some liberties with timings but the nature of estimating time in that era gives you some license for that.

Nope.

"Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court. I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half- past three. I heard the clock strike."

"Noticed by the clock" and "I heard the clock strike" differentiates.

Have a look at a map and look at where she walked from, with the Church clock on her left, all the way down Commercial Street.

There was some very poor reporting at times.

[Darryl Kenyon]

A couple of mentions in the press, which fly in the face of more logical and coherent accounts of what transpired in all the other reports, and which directly contradict Sarah Lewis's saying - quite clearly - that there was no one in the Court.

Thanks Sam, Seems like a fair post to me
Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

Nope.

"Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court. I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half- past three. I heard the clock strike."

"Noticed by the clock" and "I heard the clock strike" differentiates.

Have a look at a map and look at where she walked from, with the Church clock on her left, all the way down Commercial Street.

There was some very poor reporting at times.

Yeah just trying some ideas. It might not work out but worth a try. So then Lewis by her inquest testimony is walking to Keylers at half 2. She sees Hutchinson looking up the court and further down Dorset street she sees a man and a hatless woman(possibly another streetwalker). I think it is important actually that she says when she went into the court she saw Hutchinson and further on she saw the man and woman. So essentially she doesn't see them before she gets to the court. They are further down Dorset street.

[seanr]

For what it is worth, my understanding is that Sarah Lewis saw another couple further along Dorset Street and there was no-one in the court.

The man she saw in front of the lodging house appeared to be waiting for someone. This man may have been George Hutchinson, but if it was George Hutchinson and the couple were Astrachan and Mary Kelly, then the man would have been watching that couple, and not seeming to be waiting for someone else.

I can admit to the reading suggested that it was in fact George Hutchinson watching Mary Kelly, but I feel we need to choose to understand the words said a certain way to make the idea 'fit' this scenario. But yes, it's just about possible.

By the same token, I also consider it possible that George Hutchinson was mistaken or lying. That previous to Hutchinson coming forward, the Sarah Lewis' man was one of the potential witnesses the police at the time wanted to find and Hutchinson's testimony fitting with her sighting was amongst the reason Abberline accepted his story. However, it's at least possible the man Lewis saw was not Hutchinson and that we don't know and will likely never now know who this man was.

[Wickerman]

Sarah lewis inquest testimony - another young man with a woman passed along. Or - Further on there was a man and woman.
Wick where does this say - walked up the court please?
Your interpretation is passed along up the court, or further on up the court.
My interpretation is passed along up the street, or further on up the street.
Interpretations, not facts.
Regards Darryl.

Hi Darryl.

I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News, 13 Nov.

It can't be stated clearer than that.
I don't make these claims up, it's right there in black and white.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Darryl.

I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News, 13 Nov.

It can't be stated clearer than that.
I don't make these claims up, it's right there in black and white.

Yes, but it contradicts all the other reports of the same part of her testimony. An elementary ability in comprehension and logic will tell you that, when Lewis saw Wideawake Man and noticed a couple further on, "further on" meant "further on in Dorset Street". Nobody is going to say "further on" when they actually mean that they saw someone enter Miller's Court, and there's no way that a pressman is going to miss the exciting and newsworthy entry of a man and woman into Miller's Court if that was what she actually said. There's no way that this significant detail is going to be missed from the inquest testimony, either.

"[Further on] I saw a man and a woman with no hat on, who were the worse for drink, as I passed up Miller's Court" is probably nearer the truth, and certainly nearer to what 99% of all our other sources said. The simplest explanation, and likeliest interpretation, is that the Daily News got its wires crossed.

[Wickerman]

A couple of mentions in the press, which fly in the face of more logical and coherent accounts of what transpired in all the other reports, and which directly contradict Sarah Lewis's saying - quite clearly - that there was no one in the Court.

Let me ask you something for the future Gareth.

When you dismiss these claims can you address the fact the claim is not in isolation?
That both Hutchinson AND Lewis say that a couple walked up the passage - then proceed to offer some dismissive comment that can apply to both sources?
Corroboration is what police would look for, and here we have it in black and white. So why the obstinate stand against accepting the obvious?

Dismissing one isolated comment is to be expected, but when two independent sources make the same claim then any intent to dismiss both sources will require some extraordinary reasoning.

For some inexplicable reason press coverage of inquest testimony is perfectly acceptable in the other murder cases, but not this case. Not where anything to do with confirming Hutchinson is concerned.
Puzzling that.

[Wickerman]

Yes, but it contradicts all the other reports of the same part of her testimony. An elementary ability in comprehension and logic will tell you that, when Lewis saw Wideawake Man and noticed a couple further on, "further on" meant "further on in Dorset Street". Nobody is going to say "further on" when they actually mean that they saw someone enter Miller's Court, and there's no way that a pressman is going to miss the exciting and newsworthy entry of a man and woman into Miller's Court if that was what she actually said. There's no way that this significant detail is going to be missed from the inquest testimony, either.

It wasn't important at the inquest. It only became important after Hutchinson identified who that couple was. Something Lewis was not able to do.

"Further on" is ahead of Lewis, the loiterer was on the other side of Dorset street, but on her side (same side as Lewis) there was a couple "further on" - ahead of her.

"[Further on] I saw a man and a woman with no hat on, who were the worse for drink, as I passed up Miller's Court" is probably nearer the truth, and certainly nearer to what 99% of all our other sources said. The simplest explanation, and likeliest interpretation, is that the Daily News got its wires crossed.

We can all change the evidence to suit the theory, how would you feel if the police did that?
Should we all re-write what witnesses say and make up our own Jack the Ripper historical account?

[Sam Flynn]

Let me ask you something for the future Gareth.

When you dismiss these claims can you address the fact the claim is not in isolation?

Lewis's testimony should stand on its own, and it does so pretty coherently in spite of what the isolated Daily News (mis)report might say.

You may take it in conjunction with Hutchinson's if you like, but it doesn't cohere with that either. Not only were the couple Hutchinson saw not drunk, but he took up his vigil only after he'd seen Mary and Astrakhan enter the court. However, Wideawake Man was already stationed outside the lodging house opposite Miller's Court when Lewis saw the couple "further on". Again, not "entering the (empty) court" or "further in front of me [as I entered the (empty) court]", but "further on".