George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[Sunny Delight]

Is it so hard to imagine that AM and Hutchinson were one and the same? Or rather the description was phony and Hutch was taking the focus off of himself? He admits to entering Millers Court and standing outside her room. That places him right outside of a murder scene, just in case! He totally alibied himself at every point.

Yes it is hard to imagine since there is absolutely no evidence for it. As for Hutchinson the killer- well again absolutely no evidence. In fact it is probably insulting to the man. This was a real person and to be labelled such a monster on the basis of such poor thories is not right. As an aside I wonder could Hutchinson ever imagine that 130 years later his statement would still be argued over.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Is it so hard to imagine that AM and Hutchinson were one and the same? Or rather the description was phony and Hutch was taking the focus off of himself? He admits to entering Millers Court and standing outside her room. That places him right outside of a murder scene, just in case! He totally alibied himself at every point.

[Sam Flynn]

What makes you think both man & woman were drunk?

The source you provided in response to Daryl above:

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.

Lewis doesn't say the loiterer was already 'watching' before the couple reached the court.

You mean he suddenly started watching the court only when Lewis approached, prior to which he was looking elsewhere? Don't think so.

Besides, when did the couple reach the court? Were they walking between Lewis and Wideawake Man? If so, why didn't she say so? Why didn't she say that the couple were "in front of me" and not "further on"?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Wick your reasoning is the couple seen by Lewis [Mary and Astrakhan ], were further up the street from her before they entered the court and by the time she got there all was quiet in the court and she didn't see them enter a room?
So they must have been a distance away from her.
How did she know the man was young [yet not notice his fancy attire] .at night in a poorly lit street?
Hutchinson also said his suspect was 34 or 5. I wouldn't say that was young especially in Victorian times.
More likely a young courting couple who were near Sarah just passing up the street.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

For the life of me Wick I cannot see why it wouldn't be important at the inquest.
A couple entering the court were a woman is found brutally murdered a few hours later and possibly killed around an hour after, regarding witness testimony of the sounds of " Oh murder". Of course this couple would be vitally important to be identified. It beggars belief that they would wait for another witness [who may or may not come forward], to propose that the couple may have been Mary and JTR.
And the coroner not ask pertinent questions like asking for a description of the couple, or asking if there were any lights on in any of the other rooms within the court which might establish which abode they entered.

[Wickerman]

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".

What makes you think both man & woman were drunk?

Lewis doesn't say the loiterer was already 'watching' before the couple reached the court.

Both your objections are invalid, the first clearly wrong, the second is only an assumption.

[Sam Flynn]

Should we all re-write what witnesses say and make up our own Jack the Ripper historical account?

I certainly wouldn't expect to rewrite history on the basis of a Daily News report that doesn't tally with 99% of our other sources or, frankly, logic and common sense.

[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".

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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