George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[Sam Flynn]

The point being made is, the expression "further on" was made by a Daily Telegraph reporter, not Lewis.

Hodgkinson, the court recorder wrote:
"another young man with a woman passed along"

The Morning Post reporter wrote:
"She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink."

The Morning Advertiser wrote:
"A young man went along with a young woman."

Whether passing along, going along, coming along or "further on", neither of these mean "entering Miller's Court". If she had really said that, then all the papers would have picked up on it. Yet only one says as much, and that report contained at least one glaring error, as Darryl's post above reminds us.

[Darryl Kenyon]

[QUOTE
The only fully detailed version is given by the Daily News:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Given that this matches Hutchinson's account, what reason is there to ignore it?[/QUOTE]

Hi Wick, As I poster earlier the Daily news [same article and paragraph], also quotes Sarah as saying - In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one.
As far as i know this is the only newspaper to report seeing wideawake right outside Mary's door looking into the open yard of the court.
Isn't that reason enough to cast doubt on - I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Regards Darryl

[Wickerman]

The inquest testimony in the official documents quotes Sarah Lewis saying, "Further on,"...

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.


The focal point is that she identifies the loiterer first as being in line with the passage into Miller's Court as she is about to enter it.

The point being made is, the expression "further on" was made by a Daily Telegraph reporter, not Lewis.

Hodgkinson, the court recorder wrote:
"another young man with a woman passed along"

The Morning Post reporter wrote:
"She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink."

The Morning Advertiser wrote:
"A young man went along with a young woman."

We are not given the actual words used by Lewis.

The only fully detailed version is given by the Daily News:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Given that this matches Hutchinson's account, what reason is there to ignore it?

[Wickerman]

I think one report states a reporter from the press association .
Most reports say it has been passed or released to them .
Anything that mentions an interview with the press association must be viewed with caution as the same was said about Mrs Kennedy

It wasn't the Press Association.

[Sam Flynn]

The varying signature is hefty circumstantial evidence of someone signing a name that wasn't actually his own.

Only one "H" really differs; the one letter on the first page. The reminder of that signature and those on subsequent pages of the witness statement are consistent.

Furthermore, apart from that one anomalous "H" on the first page, the witness statement signatures are fully consistent with the many examples of George Topping Hutchinson's signatures we see on his marriage certificate and census entries.

[packers stem]

No name, but we know it was a Central News Agency journalist.
(The very same outfit who were responsible for the fake 'Dear Boss' - I'm sure you can work that into your theory )

I think one report states a reporter from the press association .
Most reports say it has been passed or released to them .
Anything that mentions an interview with the press association must be viewed with caution as the same was said about Mrs Kennedy

[packers stem]

Again, this is just a theory. I haven't pinned my flag to the mast on anyone or anything. It's about exploring all possibilities. I do have my own main theory on the killing but at the moment I'm going through various scenarios to see if anything may rule it out before putting it forward. I have to ask questions - regardless of how repetitive or ludicrous they appear to sound to the more seasoned Ripper aficionados on here - so I can be sure my theory can be tested without immediate dismissal.

No harm in exploring possibilities at all
Makes a refreshing change from the usual ripperology tact that we see on these boards of ignoring or distorting of facts to enable their theory that we see on a daily basis here .... see any Maxwell thread where theorists have to find ways to discredit her as she "doesn't fit"

For my part I suspect curious George didn't actually exist and that once the accomplice pardon was announced , someone was paid more than one or two shillings to give this story to remove the need for any search for a possible accomplice .
The varying signature is hefty circumstantial evidence of someone signing a name that wasn't actually his own .

[Wickerman]

...

Do we know who Hutchinson initially spoke to when he went to the press to elaborate further on his statement?

No name, but we know it was a Central News Agency journalist.
(The very same outfit who were responsible for the fake 'Dear Boss' - I'm sure you can work that into your theory )

[Curious Cat]

Fair enough.
If we read the court record of what Lewis said, leaving the press accounts aside, there is no clear understanding of where this couple was, after mentioning the Keyler's, we read:

-- When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House. He was not tall – but stout – had on a wideawake black hat
-- I did not notice his clothes
-- another young man with a woman passed along
-- The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for some one to come out, I went to Mrs [Kelseys – deleted] Keylers I was awake all night in a chair I dozed I heard no noise I woke up at about half past three

Using this original source alone, where do you think this couple was?
a) In the street, coming along behind Lewis?
b) In the street, between Lewis and the court?
c) In the street, beyond Millers Court?
d) In the passage, ahead of Lewis?

As the expression "further on" requires a focal point (further on from what?), and this expression was used by the reporter, not an apparent quote from Lewis, then what convinces you that the focal point for the reporter was the court, as opposed to the witness (Lewis), or the loiterer?

The inquest testimony in the official documents quotes Sarah Lewis saying, "Further on,"...

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.


The focal point is that she identifies the loiterer first as being in line with the passage into Miller's Court as she is about to enter it. This in turn puts her in line with the loiterer. She approached from the east. She then identifies the couple as being further on, this means they were a degree west of the passage as it, Sarah Lewis and the loiterer were at the Dorset Street meridian line with the east behind her.

This also means, if the couple are walking eastwards, she enters the passage to Miller's Court before the they reach it - which goes with her saying there was no-one in the court. If the couple were walking westwards then they were walking away from the passage as Sarah Lewis approached.

[Curious Cat]

Hi curious cat
This is the scenario you are suggesting I believe .

George Hutchinson , as luck would have it , happens to know a reporter at the inquest .

He then so happens to bump into said reporter in the late afternoon after the inquest had closed .
The reporter then just so happens to sit and chat to George , to repeat the evidence of Sarah Lewis rather than getting his report completed for his editor in the limited time he had available .
George then has a few short minutes to decide that he may have been seen by Lewis (who didn't recognise the man she saw) and makes a decision to go to the police , formulates a statement in his mind and arrives at 6

I think not

Ah no, you've taken it down the wrong path on this one. This is another question to explore what is or what isn't possible.

The scenario that crossed my mind was in line with my opening post of this thread. If we place Hutchinson as being the man identified by Sarah Lewis as Britannia man/the Bethnal Green botherer, then it brings context the shadowing of her statement. It draws attention away from that individual - who has been doubly identified - and throws it onto Astrachan man instead.

If Hutchinson was approached to work in cahoots with someone who worked in the press to stir up a bit of ripper-like tension in the area after a lull in the murders, then both would be keen to distract from their folly. Imagine being in the press pit as the inquest testimony is being given and then realising your man has been spotted near the murder site and the person can also place them at another location acting suspiciously. Rather than happening to bump into each other after the inquest, the press man would've gone directly to Hutchinson and told him what he needed to do to take the heat off of Britannia man/the Bethnal Green botherer. Hutchinson has to suggest he knew Mary Kelly well to qualify her ID to him and justify following her and Astrachan.

Do we know who Hutchinson initially spoke to when he went to the press to elaborate further on his statement?

Again, this is just a theory. I haven't pinned my flag to the mast on anyone or anything. It's about exploring all possibilities. I do have my own main theory on the killing but at the moment I'm going through various scenarios to see if anything may rule it out before putting it forward. I have to ask questions - regardless of how repetitive or ludicrous they appear to sound to the more seasoned Ripper aficionados on here - so I can be sure my theory can be tested without immediate dismissal.

[packers stem]

Wasn't the 'Dear Boss' letter created by a man who worked for the press?

We know Hutchinson didn't know the witnesses, but do we know he didn't know anyone working in the press?

Hi curious cat
This is the scenario you are suggesting I believe .

George Hutchinson , as luck would have it , happens to know a reporter at the inquest .

He then so happens to bump into said reporter in the late afternoon after the inquest had closed .
The reporter then just so happens to sit and chat to George , to repeat the evidence of Sarah Lewis rather than getting his report completed for his editor in the limited time he had available .
George then has a few short minutes to decide that he may have been seen by Lewis (who didn't recognise the man she saw) and makes a decision to go to the police , formulates a statement in his mind and arrives at 6

I think not

[DJA]

e) further along from wideawake hat wearer ie prolly between 15 Dorset Street and Crispin Street.

[Wickerman]

Yes, presumably somewhat in the distance, further on than the entrance to Miller's Court, therefore unconnected with it.

Fair enough.
If we read the court record of what Lewis said, leaving the press accounts aside, there is no clear understanding of where this couple was, after mentioning the Keyler's, we read:

-- When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House. He was not tall – but stout – had on a wideawake black hat
-- I did not notice his clothes
-- another young man with a woman passed along
-- The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for some one to come out, I went to Mrs [Kelseys – deleted] Keylers I was awake all night in a chair I dozed I heard no noise I woke up at about half past three

Using this original source alone, where do you think this couple was?
a) In the street, coming along behind Lewis?
b) In the street, between Lewis and the court?
c) In the street, beyond Millers Court?
d) In the passage, ahead of Lewis?

As the expression "further on" requires a focal point (further on from what?), and this expression was used by the reporter, not an apparent quote from Lewis, then what convinces you that the focal point for the reporter was the court, as opposed to the witness (Lewis), or the loiterer?

[Sam Flynn]

Can I just clarify something with you?

Are you suggesting Lewis saw a completely different couple in Dorset street that night?

Yes, presumably somewhat in the distance, further on than the entrance to Miller's Court, therefore unconnected with it.

[Curious Cat]

And for Curious cat, who's thread has spiralled without providing an answer to the original question .....

No ...George Hutchinson would have known nothing of Sarah Lewis or her testimony at 6pm on the 12th .
Sarah Lewis did not make the evening press .
Only witnesses and press were present at the inquest as the room was too small to admit members of the public .
Some may try some bits of desperate straw clutching like he was standing outsude the door with a glass to it but if you want to be real .... then no , he couldn't know the details of that testimony .Never mind formulating a statement in time to shadow

Wasn't the 'Dear Boss' letter created by a man who worked for the press?

We know Hutchinson didn't know the witnesses, but do we know he didn't know anyone working in the press?