George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[Wickerman]

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.

So when you wrote..." one does not say "further on", unless one is referring to things further down the street." you now concede (due to paraphrase by a third party) that you cannot be certain this couple were further on past Millers Court passage?

[Sam Flynn]

So when you wrote..." one does not say "further on", unless one is referring to things further down the street." you now concede (due to paraphrase by a third party) that you cannot be certain this couple were further on past Millers Court passage?

All but one of the press reports use paraphrased third party words which mean that, yes. None of these papers used words (paraphrased or otherwise) which said that Lewis saw the couple enter Miller's Court, which they assuredly would have explicitly said had it been the case. Simply because that would have been far more newsworthy than what most of them actually wrote, namely that the couple were merely "passing along", and were "further on" down Dorset Street.

[Wickerman]

All but one of the press reports use paraphrased third party words which mean that, yes. None of these papers used words (paraphrased or otherwise) which said that Lewis saw the couple enter Miller's Court, which they assuredly would have explicitly said had it been the case. Simply because that would have been far more newsworthy than what most of them actually wrote, namely that the couple were merely "passing along", and were "further on" down Dorset Street.

I suspect what is leading you astray is being unduly influenced by the later story told by Hutchinson, where the presence of a couple in the street would be of some importance.

We must look at Lewis's story as if Hutchinson's story was not known, the court was only interested in what Lewis had to say about the loiterer & the man outside the Britannia. This is evident by the court recorder making only a passing mention of a couple in the street (ie; a couple passed along), and emphasized by the fact the Times, one of the most influential newspapers of the time, make no mention whatsoever of this other couple.

No-one appreciated the importance of this couple at the time. The fact we have any detail at all from the Morning Post, Daily News & Daily Telegraph is more due to fortune than them reporting on a 'newsworthy' item.
Clearly, they were of no interest to the majority of reporters/editors in any way.

[Sam Flynn]

Nothing is "leading me astray" at all. If the couple had gone into the court, then ALL the papers - and the official record - would have said simply that. Furthermore, the language chosen by the majority of the papers, whether editorial in origin or actual quotes from Lewis ("further on", "passing along" etc) do NOT indicate turning into a narrow entrance - quite the contrary in fact.

[Wickerman]

The explanation you gave previously.....

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....
.......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.

Seems to suggest the couple walking up the court was the result of editing / paraphrasing by one of the press.
If this is the case, how extraordinarily coincidental it would be for an editor (or journalist) to unintentionally manipulate the woman's testimony so it would say exactly what an independent witness (Hutch) was to tell the police within the hour(?).
Quite the coincidence!

Yet, you have said yourself that two women turning up at the same address on the same morning is too coincidental to be believed???

This doesn't sound like the the same person talking here

[Sam Flynn]

Seems to suggest the couple walking up the court was the result of editing / paraphrasing by one of the press.

I was making a general point,Wick. In specific regard to the couple walking up the court, I think that was the result of a simple c0ck-up or misunderstanding on the behalf of the Daily News' editor.

[Curious Cat]

Been a bit busy elsewhere but returning this line.

Last week I had the impromptu opportunity to retrace some of Hutchinson's steps along Commercial Street. While I have been in and around the area a few times over the years, it was in a casual pass along way to various places. This was the first time I had walked along with a specific eye for particular details and enlightening it was too.

One of my issues with George's statement was the jump cut he makes from the corner of Flower and Dean street to the Queens Head pub while still retaining observation of Mary's meeting with Astrachan man on the corner of Thrawl Street. He can't really observe the meeting as he travels to the Queens Head unless he's walking backwards all the way. Also, if you stand at the Queens Head the view of the east side of Commercial Street is obscured by the curve that falls between Fashion Street and Whites Row (this is due to Commercial Street having been created by cutting through and following the line of two separate streets, Rose Lane and Red Lion Street, in the 1850s.) As the angles have not changed it's clear the corners of Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street would not have been visible from the position of standing on the pavement outside the Queens Head. As Mary was walking southwards - and therefore in the opposite direction of the Queens Head - when they met on the corner of Flower and Dean Street, which she continued after she left him behind, it seems especially fortuitous that Hutchinson should anticipate Mary double backing on herself and returning northwards to pass him again. This anticipation allowed an already suspicious Hutchinson to get a better look at Astrachan and prompted him to follow them to Dorset Street and hang around for 40 minutes before leaving Mary to her fate.

However...

If we go back to the idea that Hutchinson may have been Sarah Lewis' Britannia man/Bethnal Green botherer, this instead places him on the corner of Dorset Street, which was on the west side of Commercial Street. This was a position where the corners of Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street would have been visible. Sarah Lewis saw this man talking with a bare headed woman outside The Britannia pub as she passed into Dorset Street. What if Hutchinson/Britannia man/Bethnal Green botherer was talking with Mary and that moment Sarah Lewis passed by, but then parted company without incident, watched her walk down Commercial Street and last saw her approaching Thrawl Street before moving on?

This would mean his statement had an element of truth to it but the other details are there to deflect from him being identified as the man Sarah Lewis saw. This also still accounts for his initial reticence to go to the police as he may have thought he would not have had anything worth passing on other than briefly talking with her and seeing her walk away from the crime scene with no obvious shady characters in the vicinity at the time. Or maybe he hadn't realised the woman he had been speaking to that night was Mary but, even if it wasn't, the rest still applies if he was Britannia man/Bethnal Green botherer and also if he was working for someone in the press.

[Paddy Goose]

Where exactly were the Stepney Gasworks?

Situated by Regents Canal at Ben Jonson Road and Harford Street

https://safreachronicle.co.za/pillars-of-tower-hamlets/