George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[packers stem]

I agree with Abby
You can't claim Toppy as being genuine , accept his sighting as genuine and then deny what he said to his son because it doesn't suit .
Toppy and royal conspiracy go hand in glove.
You can't use typical ripperology selectivity on that one
Reg Hutchinson appeared in the appendix of the paperback version of Melvyn Fairclough's 'The Ripper and the Royals ' in 1992 .
As it wasn't in the main text I'm guessing that he read the hardback version and contacted the author .
He was interviewed by Melvyn and Joseph Sickert in May 1992

Reg told us that his father said that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police .
He told his son that it was "more to do with the royal family than ordinary people" and when asked who he thought it was he always said " it was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill"
Reg continued "he was paid a hundred shillings , but he never said why"

[packers stem]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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 .

We understimate the jungle grapevine at our peril.

[Wickerman]

It would take much more than a jungle grapevine for a person to insert themselves into someone else's story without knowing who that person was, and if that person would even be a witness, or even if someone else would come forward and admit to being the loiterer.

The point about interpreting evidence is, to determine what the evidence suggests, not what can I dream up to support a theory.

[Wickerman]

"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.

Can I just clarify something with you?

Are you suggesting Lewis saw a completely different couple in Dorset street that night?
I've assumed that is your view but I don't recall directly asking.

[Wickerman]

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.

But Abby, it is you who put "2:15" in there, no-one else.
The time is your choice.
All Lewis said was that she was at the Keylers at 2:30 (obviously, because she would hear the clock chime), not that she arrived there at 2:30, and I know I've pointed this out before, but you still.......

We are not told what time Lewis arrived at the Keylers.

[Wickerman]

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.

The Daily News does not say both were drunk, that is how you choose to interpret what was written. You are obviously taking any view in order to dismiss the parallels.

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.

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.

None of these accounts, including the court record, use Lewis's actual words. All sources paraphrase Lewis. So you are criticising Lewis on the sole basis of what the reporter wrote to encapsulate an unimportant part of her story.
People in the street coming or going were of no interest to the coroner unless as potential suspects.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[DJA]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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 )