George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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"?

[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.

[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.

[Curious Cat]

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

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?

That appears to be the case.

I'm not suggesting at all Hutchinson knew Sarah Lewis's statement in advance, but rather that he hadn't anticipated it.

Hi Cat.
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.

Wrong assumption with this particular theory.

Sarah Lewis had a fleetingly unpleasant encounter with a man she'd never met before on Wednesday night in Bethnal Green. By chance, she sees the same man 36 hours later at a different location in Spitalfields and just yards from the crime scene on the morning of the murder. Said man would surely feel rattled to learn he'd not only have been identified once but twice within the same testimony at the inquest of a murder.

Consider then, that Hutchinson was actually Britannia Man and so in turn the Bethnal Green botherer. Lewis says she is unsure whether he recognised her from the night before as she passed, which could well be the case. Why would it occur to Britannia Man that one of the women he frightened the night before had passed him while he was engrossed in conversation with another woman?

Either in panic or cold calculation, Hutchinson goes to the police and uses Lewis's statement as a template to place himself in the vicinity but shift it enough to take attention away from the man Sarah Lewis would readily recognise and make himself a separate individual at the location. The couple Lewis mentions gives him Mary and Astrachan, the lack of policeman is already noted but he doesn't identify himself as the man waiting opposite Miller's Court as seen by Lewis and says nothing about seeing Lewis herself. But that would be the point. He can't say he saw Lewis as Lewis could be asked to confirm his identity. His mistake, however, is taking Lewis' testimony of the couple at face value. He doesn't consider that the couple being on the other side of Miller's Court and possibly walking towards Lewis.

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.

It's important to be open to other theories, even when you have a favoured one, if there's nothing conclusive to rule it out.


If there's anything that stops this theory being possible I'll happily leave it behind and look again from another angle.

[Wickerman]

For the life of me Wick I cannot see why it wouldn't be important at the inquest.

What I mean Darryl is, Sarah Lewis was considered a witness by police because she saw this loiterer, and she heard the 'scream' just before 4:00.
This is the evidence she gave to Abberline on Friday afternoon.
She also mentioned the Wednesday episode, but that was already history.

The coroner chose her statement and summoned her to appear at the inquest. Therefore, we know Lewis's sighting of the loiterer & hearing the 'scream' are the two important details she had to share with the court.
No mention of seeing any couple.

During her testimony at the inquest she seemed to only mention this couple in passing. The coroner did not ask any direct questions about them.
Whereas he did ask about the loiterer, and about hearing the scream.
Once she mentioned the Wednesday episode the coroner showed an interest in this Britannia-man. Only then does Lewis include the fact she saw the same 'Wednesday-man' on Friday morning before she saw the loiterer.

So her testimony is not given chronologically, she is responding to questions.
Here in the court record I circled a sample section of some occurrences of a dash " - " . This is where the subject changed, the dash replaces a question by the coroner.



As you can see prior to Lewis saying, "another young man with a woman", there is a dash. So Lewis only told the coroner about this couple in response to a question.
After she mentioned the loiterer, I suspect the coroner merely asked, "was there anyone else in the street?".
To which she apparently replied, "another young man with a woman..etc." The rest of what she said to the court about this couple was not deemed important by Hodgkinson, the recorder.

So from the written testimony it is apparent this couple was of no importance to the court.
That is just the fact of the matter whether you agree or not.
Thankfully, some of the press provided more detail than the court recorder. This is not surprising as the reporters used shorthand to capture more detail, but Hodgkinson only used longhand, so kept the details to the minimum.

[Wickerman]

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.

I think you are getting all tied up in 19th century terminology. If a male is not a youth, or an old man, it is polite to refer to him as a young man, thats all.

[Wickerman]

The source you provided in response to Daryl above:

Hutchinson did not say Astrachan was drunk, but Mary was, "a little spreeish".

Likewise, Lewis did not say the "young man" was drunk, but that the woman was, "the worse for drink".

The Daily Telegraph made it even clearer:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

What Hutchinson & Lewis said, matched.

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

No Gareth, Lewis says she only noticed him as she reached the court (passage).
In her police statement she said:
"....when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."
This did not change in her court testimony:
"...When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street".
Even the Daily Telegraph uses the same type of phrase.

Lewis didn't say the loiterer was there watching as she came towards Millers Court, but she only noticed him as she arrived at the court.
By that time this couple that had been further on ahead of her, had turned into the court, and vanished indoors (presumably).

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"?

??? huh?
Thats what "further on" means. If I am walking down a street and you are "further on", then you are in front of me.

[Sam Flynn]

Likewise, Lewis did not say the "young man" was drunk, but that the woman was, "the worse for drink".

The Daily Telegraph made it even clearer:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

Even clearer? Got it right, more like. The Daily News would have us believe that the couple was drunk, which is a clear sign that its account of Lewis's testimony had been trimmed to the point where the wrong information was conveyed. It's obvious that the Daily News omitted the important fact that it was "the latter" - i.e. the woman - who was "in drink", a detail that the Telegraph picked up on.

No Gareth, Lewis says she only noticed him as she reached the court (passage).

That doesn't contradict what I said.

Lewis didn't say the loiterer was there watching as she came towards Millers Court, but she only noticed him as she arrived at the court.
By that time this couple that had been further on ahead of her, had turned into the court, and vanished indoors (presumably).

Why didn't she say that? Whether it was of interest to the inquest or not, it's the natural thing for Lewis to have said in her narrative without prompting. Had she actually said such a thing, it should have appeared in all the newspapers, not least because a couple actually entering Miller's Court is more newsworthy than a couple merely seen "further on". Perhaps this is what caused the error in the Daily News.

Thats what "further on" means. If I am walking down a street and you are "further on", then you are in front of me.

But that's not a natural thing to say; one says "in front of me", or "ahead of me" - one does not say "further on", unless one is referring to things further down the street.

[Sam Flynn]

"Another man with a woman passed along" - not "Another man with a woman entered Miller's Court".

One passes along a street; one doesn't "pass along" by turning into an entrance passage.

[Abby Normal]

again- the man and women sarah lewis saw couldn't have been Kelly and Aman.

hutch saw them enter the court at 2:15. Lewis arrived later and also went into the court shortly after 2:30. Both fixed there times with a clock.


so mary and aman (if hutch is being truthful) have already been in Marys room for about 15 minutes before sarah lewis even arrives.

end of.

[Abby Normal]

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.'

bingo!