Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

    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 .
    You can lead a horse to water.....

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      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
      You can lead a horse to water.....

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by packers stem View Post
        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.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by packers stem View Post
          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.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
            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?
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #81
              [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

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                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.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                  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
                  Hi Darryl.

                  So when Hutchinson, in his press interview, told the reporter:
                  "I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

                  And, he also told the police, "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.", which is to some degree ambiguous, but he must have gone into the court if he expected to see them.

                  Are you saying that also doesn't sound like the same as was reported by the Daily News?

                  Some reports place this loiterer in front of the lodging-house opposite Millers Court, others place him at the entrance to Millers Court, while here the D.N. say he was seen in Millers Court where Kelly lived.
                  Yet, from Hutchinson's story, and accepting him as being inquisitive, we can quite naturally place him at all three locations throughout his vigil.
                  So why play one off against the other, why does one have to be right and the others wrong, when all three can be correct depending at what time it was in his vigil.

                  Did you also notice it was only the Daily News who provided another detail: "...I did not take any notice, especially as a short time before there had been a row in the court."
                  Just before the scream Lewis heard a row coming from the court.
                  Statements like this are not easy to explain as mistakes. No reporter invents testimony as "a mistake".
                  Yet some reporters provide more detail than others, which we should be grateful for.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    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.
                    It's a difference of perspective. It shows that there is no certainty as to where this couple was. All we can say for sure is they were walking in Dorset street.
                    Yet, a definite statement like: "....pass up the court" has no ambiguity attached. It is quite clear what this couple did.

                    A "doorway" can be confused, especially by reporters who may not be familiar with the location. I certainly agree, but why would a reporter say this couple "passed up the court" if it was never said by Lewis?
                    They may misunderstand a location but an action like walking up the court cannot be a mistake.
                    Especially, when it has been corroborated by an independent witness.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Hi Darryl.

                      So when Hutchinson, in his press interview, told the reporter:
                      "I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

                      And, he also told the police, "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not.", which is to some degree ambiguous, but he must have gone into the court if he expected to see them.

                      Are you saying that also doesn't sound like the same as was reported by the Daily News?

                      Some reports place this loiterer in front of the lodging-house opposite Millers Court, others place him at the entrance to Millers Court, while here the D.N. say he was seen in Millers Court where Kelly lived.
                      Yet, from Hutchinson's story, and accepting him as being inquisitive, we can quite naturally place him at all three locations throughout his vigil.
                      So why play one off against the other, why does one have to be right and the others wrong, when all three can be correct depending at what time it was in his vigil.

                      Did you also notice it was only the Daily News who provided another detail: "...I did not take any notice, especially as a short time before there had been a row in the court."
                      Just before the scream Lewis heard a row coming from the court.
                      Statements like this are not easy to explain as mistakes. No reporter invents testimony as "a mistake".
                      Yet some reporters provide more detail than others, which we should be grateful for.
                      Hi Wick, The trouble I have with the Daily News article though is it doesn't mention what Hutch said, it mentions what Sarah Lewis says, and nowhere else does it mention that she saw wideawake outside Mary's door. As far as I can tell [ I stand corrected if wrong], she says in all other reports that she saw the loiterer across the street from the court.
                      Regards Darryl

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                        Hi Wick, The trouble I have with the Daily News article though is it doesn't mention what Hutch said, it mentions what Sarah Lewis says, and nowhere else does it mention that she saw wideawake outside Mary's door. As far as I can tell [ I stand corrected if wrong], she says in all other reports that she saw the loiterer across the street from the court.
                        Regards Darryl
                        Yes, it looks very likely that there was confusion concerning this doorway. Reporters placed this loiterer at three locations. Was he standing at the doorway of the large lodging-house opposite the court, or at the entrance to Millers court (not specifically 'a doorway' but it did lead to the victims room), or at Kelly's doorway?
                        Reporters not familiar with the area may reasonably confuse which doorway she was talking about.
                        It's just a strange coincidence that Hutchinson spent some time at each one of those locations as he stepped through his vigil.

                        This is why I always say it is necessary to collate the sources, all of them. Not cherry-pic one as
                        the best' out of the others. There is no single one source which captures the whole story.

                        In the Inquest record the 'scream' was said to have come from the victims room, but the Telegraph said "it sounded at our door", while the Morning Advertiser said it came from the direction of the shop.
                        There are details to be contested throughout her testimony if we choose to do so, but if we collate all the available sources some problems answer themselves.

                        To me it's only common sense that 5 or 10 reporters are going to select different details from the same inquest, plus their editors will take out what they think is not relevant. Column space was a premium in the newspaper, all testimony was edited before it went to print. We have no idea how much testimony was left on the cutting room floor (so to speak).

                        With so many fingers in the pie we cannot hope to find one all inclusive source. Even the court recorder was selective, in the main because he wrote in long-hand so didn't have time to capture all that was said. While the reporters used short-hand, so could capture more testimony.

                        When we read the couple "went along", another wrote "coming along", another "passed along", then another "further on", then there is no point in insisting this couple were at a specific point in Dorset street. It's not possible to place them anywhere except at the court because, "passed up the court" is a definite location, the others are not.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                          This is why I always say it is necessary to collate the sources, all of them. Not cherry-pic one as
                          the best' out of the others. There is no single one source which captures the whole story.
                          .
                          This is True Wick, but The Daily News is the only newspaper which reports Sarah as saying she first saw wideawake within the court. We know this is almost certainly wrong. All other reports have Sarah seeing him first outside Crossinghams, across the street etc. If all other newspapers have the couple passing along, further on etc and the Daily news is the only paper reporting that the couple went up the court, why can't they be wrong on this detail as well?
                          Regards Darryl
                          Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 01-22-2019, 09:05 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                            This is True Wick, but The Daily News is the only newspaper which reports Sarah as saying she first saw wideawake within the court.
                            Well, in all fairness, are you sure that (in bold) is what the Daily News wrote?

                            If, for instance she told the court that she first noticed a loiterer as she reached the passage, but later, on looking out her window, she saw the same loiterer standing at Kellys door.

                            The Daily Telegraph editor included her first remark, but not the second.
                            They wrote:
                            "When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake."

                            However, the Daily News editor omitted the first remark, but included the second.
                            "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."
                            (there's no mention of "first")

                            Because we have no complete record of what each witness said, some of us may argue these are contradictory statements. Yet, as I suggested above, in this example she actually said both.
                            And, we know Hutchinson was standing opposite Millers Court, and that later he did walk up the court to see if he could see or hear something.
                            The testimony of all the witnesses was edited down, all the press editors will not choose the same pieces of detail.
                            The Times edited out all references to her seeing this 'couple'.

                            I'm not suggesting this is actually how it happened, but just trying to explain how easy it is to jump to the wrong conclusion when we do not have a full record of what Sarah Lewis told the court.

                            It's like trying to imagine the picture in a 100 piece puzzle, with only 50 pieces available.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              Well, in all fairness, are you sure that (in bold) is what the Daily News wrote?

                              If, for instance she told the court that she first noticed a loiterer as she reached the passage, but later, on looking out her window, she saw the same loiterer standing at Kellys door.

                              The Daily Telegraph editor included her first remark, but not the second.
                              They wrote:
                              "When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake."

                              However, the Daily News editor omitted the first remark, but included the second.
                              "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."
                              (there's no mention of "first")

                              Because we have no complete record of what each witness said, some of us may argue these are contradictory statements. Yet, as I suggested above, in this example she actually said both.
                              And, we know Hutchinson was standing opposite Millers Court, and that later he did walk up the court to see if he could see or hear something.
                              The testimony of all the witnesses was edited down, all the press editors will not choose the same pieces of detail.
                              The Times edited out all references to her seeing this 'couple'.

                              I'm not suggesting this is actually how it happened, but just trying to explain how easy it is to jump to the wrong conclusion when we do not have a full record of what Sarah Lewis told the court.

                              It's like trying to imagine the picture in a 100 piece puzzle, with only 50 pieces available.
                              I take your point Wick, I didn't quote the article verbatim, but to my mind when the Daily News reports - In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. I am pretty sure what they meant was she saw the loiterer outside Mary's at the end of the passageway. This fly's in the face of all other reports, so why not? - I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.

                              Here is the full report taken from this site so people can make up their own mind - Sarah Lewes, 24, Great Pearl-street, a laundress, said-I know a Mrs. Keiller, in Miller's-court, and went to see her on Friday morning at 2.30 o'clock by Spitalfields Church clock. 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. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court. I stopped that night at Mrs. Keiller's because I had had a few words at home. I slept in a chair and woke up about half-past three. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female voice shout "Murder!" It seemed like a young woman's voice. There was only one scream. I did not take any notice, especially as a short time before there had been a row in the court.

                              Regarding the row that may have been Catherine Pickett and her husband arguing over Mary's singing. Sarah wouldn't have heard this, with the timing but the Keylers may have told her.
                              Regards Darryl

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                The testimony of all the witnesses was edited down, all the press editors will not choose the same pieces of detail.
                                It's apparent to me that editors would sometimes have to paraphrase and/or re-sequence the testimony, in order to make what remained after the editing process make (apparent) sense. This alone, I'd suggest, would explain most of the inconsistencies and errors.
                                It's like trying to imagine the picture in a 100 piece puzzle, with only 50 pieces available.
                                ...editors inserting their own hand-painted pieces to replace any missing ones, just to make the picture make sense. If we look closely at jigsaw "A", that bit of clear sky there is a different shade of blue compared to its neighbours, whoever completed jigsaw "B" chose a different shade again, whilst whoever did jigsaw "C" was happy to leave out that bit of sky entirely.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X