George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.