Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutch's Man

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


    Hi Jeff.

    We have Lewis giving her address in Great Pearl Street and visiting her friends in Millers Court, yet the Gallaghers at No.2 Millers Court say Mrs Kennedy is their married daughter and came home that noght.
    The differences are a world away from editing errors.




    Why should it be wrong? If Kennedy passed the Britannia "about 3:00", and Hutchinson left Dorset street when the clock chimed 3:00, then Kennedy would be approaching Millers Court after Hutchinson had left.
    Why doesn't it fit?



    "Lewis's Man?", Not sure which man you mean.
    Lewis saw one man outside the Britannia, she also saw one man opposite Millers court - the loiterer. She also saw a couple, which I take to be Kelly& Astrachan, who she said entered the court ahead of her.



    Lewis gave her story directly to the inquest. Kennedy gave her story directly to the press.
    No re-telling involved.



    I think you are making an assumption that isn't warranted.
    Hutchinson places himself within hearing distance of the exchange between Astrachan & Kelly. This must reasonably mean he was on the opposite side of Dorset street. He watched them enter the passage.

    Sarah Lewis did not say she saw this loiterer as she approached, she said she first noticed him as she got to the court.
    The loiterer is the important detail to the Coroner, not the couple. Thats why Lewis mentioned him first.

    The inquest papers do not include coroners questions (as you know), but each of Lewis's replies in the original is separated by a dash "-"
    First the coroner asked about the loiterer, after she replied, he asked another question. We do not know what that question was, but Lewis responded by saying, "another couple passed along", in another version, "further on there was a man & a woman".

    ****

    Let me just lay this out as I see it.
    The Coroners questions are my guesswork, Lewis's replies are from her testimony.

    Coroner: Tell me what you saw as you approached Millers Court.

    Lewis: 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.

    Coroner: Can you describe him, how was he dressed?

    Lewis: I did not notice his clothes

    Coroner: Was there anyone else in the street?

    Lewis: another young man with a woman passed along
    (alt.#1 - Further on there was a man and woman, the latter being in drink)
    (alt. #2 - I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.)



    What I laid out above has been the source of controversy. Notably, that "further on" must mean further on down Dorset street, so this couple cannot be Astrachan & Kelly.
    This is wrong, the topic had changed.

    Lewis is at the court when she first noticed the loiterer.
    But, Lewis also tells us she saw this couple enter the court, so obviously she is now referring back to when she was approaching Millers Court.
    The couple cannot be further down the street if she saw them enter the court - that's only common sense.
    So, it should be clear that there has been a change in topic.
    First she is talking about the loiterer. Then she is asked about the other couple (in response to a question). So now her reply rewinds the story a few seconds to where she is now approaching Millers Court, and "further on" she noticed this other couple, she saw them enter the court.
    Hi Wickerman,

    I think I need to refresh myself with all the various stories in full. I was thinking of "retelling" as in Lewis at inquest and to the press under a different name (but I need to double check on details, like dates, etc) and have Hutchinson's story in front of me as well. I have Hutchinson in my head watching Kelly and Astrakhan man go into Miller's Court, so if Lewis sees Hutchinson waiting, Kelly and Astrakhan man must already be in the room, hence Lewis couldn't have seen her. But, I see what you're getting at above, which could change that. Also, to get the details fresh again about when Hutchinson claims to have left, etc. I thought he said he waited 45 minutes, so something like 2:00 - 2:45, but I suppose if Astrakhan man leaves shortly after that then Kelly could get to the Britannia again by 3:00 to meet another man. Again, I think I should brush up on all these, with the details of each in front of me again, particularly with your idea of the story "flash backing" as it were, in mind when having a look.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      There is no way on earth that two different women are going to decide to up sticks in the middle of the same night and crash out in a small room opposite Mary Kelly's, let alone experience seeing the same kind of events, whether on the night of the murder or previously. It's self-evidently the same story, distorted/elaborated by the press, the story teller or a combination of both.
      I thought I would applaud you when we are in agreement Sam, Im not committed to a state of conflict.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        There is no way on earth that two different women are going to decide to up sticks in the middle of the same night and crash out in a small room opposite Mary Kelly's, let alone experience seeing the same kind of events, whether on the night of the murder or previously. It's self-evidently the same story, distorted/elaborated by the press, the story teller or a combination of both.
        No-one has argued that "they just decided", this is you jumping to conclusions.

        - We are not told why Kennedy was out so late, had she just finished work, or had she arranged to meet Lewis at home for some reason?
        - Lewis said she went to Millers Court because she had argued with her husband, but she doesn't say "just now", this argument could have been hours ago. There's no need for her to leave her home until he comes home from work. She can't stand to be around him, so she leaves.
        This means the time she left was dependent on the time he came home from work, not on when the argument took place.
        For all you know Lewis could have asked Kennedy if she can come to stay at her house when hubby comes home, because she knows the argument will just start up again.

        You're just inventing a blanket statement that, "two women can't make arrangements to meet at the same place", which unless you have never had any association with women is about the most absurd thing you could say
        Women are always making arrangements to see each other again, always.....not sometimes - always!

        This has to be the most baffling argument I have ever seen you make, and 99.9% of the time I agree with everything you say, but this......?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #49
          How is it baffling? Do you not find it extremely unlikely that two separate women saw and did such remarkably similar things? That they both shacked up in a small room opposite the site of the worst Ripper murder ever, within hours of it happening, and that they were both "ear-witnesses" to that murder? Frankly, it stretches credibility to Lechmerian levels.
          Women are always making arrangements to see each other again
          Lewis's argument with her man precipitated her leaving Gt Pearl St for Miller's Court, simple as that - she wasn't honouring a pre-arranged appointment, as if it's likely that two people would arrange to meet in someone else's tiny flat in the small hours of the morning anyway.

          I'll tell you what is baffling, though - the excuses you're having to make in order to keep the Kennedy fantasy alive.
          Last edited by Sam Flynn; 05-25-2019, 01:17 PM.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            I thought I would applaud you when we are in agreement Sam, Im not committed to a state of conflict.
            Thats about the best confirmation I could hope for, thankyou Trevor.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              I thought I would applaud you when we are in agreement Sam, Im not committed to a state of conflict.
              Glad to hear it, Michael. On both counts
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                How is it baffling? Do you not find it extremely unlikely that two separate women saw and did such remarkably similar things? That they both shacked up in a small room opposite the site of the worst Ripper murder ever, within hours of it happening, and that they were both "ear-witnesses" to that murder? Frankly, it stretches credibility to Lechmerian levels.
                Lewis's argument with her man precipitated her leaving Gt Pearl St for Miller's Court, simple as that - she wasn't honouring a pre-arranged appointment, as if it's likely that two people would arrange to meet in someone else's tiny flat in the small hours of the morning anyway.

                I'll tell you what is baffling, though - the excuses you're having to make in order to keep the Kennedy fantasy alive.
                What's baffling Gareth is that you are eliminating any possible way this could have happened.

                You prefer to demand it didn't happen because it couldn't. Yet, we already know these two were out together as best friends two nights before. It's not like we are talking about two strangers. For all we know they might be out together most nights, and because they are best friends they know each other's schedule, when they'll be home and at what hour.
                You are dismissing all these possibilities in favour of "it didn't happen, because it couldn't".

                That isn't even an argument, it's just emotion.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  What's baffling Gareth is that you are eliminating any possible way this could have happened.
                  Yup. Because I find the whole proposition absurd.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    Hi Wickerman,

                    I think I need to refresh myself with all the various stories in full. I was thinking of "retelling" as in Lewis at inquest and to the press under a different name (but I need to double check on details, like dates, etc) and have Hutchinson's story in front of me as well.
                    Hi Jeff.

                    Yes, well Kennedy spoke to the press on Saturday, Lewis didn't tell her story to anyone, until the inquest on Monday.

                    I have Hutchinson in my head watching Kelly and Astrakhan man go into Miller's Court, so if Lewis sees Hutchinson waiting, Kelly and Astrakhan man must already be in the room, hence Lewis couldn't have seen her. But, I see what you're getting at above, which could change that.
                    It's not always easy to portray a sequence of events when debating isolated comments made by a witness.
                    So, from Lewis's testimony, derived from the inquest record & the various press coverage, this is how events unfolded, in my view.


                    Lewis is walking down Dorset street towards Millers Court.
                    Ahead of her is a man & a woman, the woman is hatless, and the worse for drink.
                    Lewis saw this couple enter Millers Court, some distance ahead.
                    Then, Lewis arrives at the Court herself, this is when she first noticed a man standing on the other side of the street.
                    Lewis enters the passage and notices there is no-one in the Court (which means, the couple she saw must have gone indoors).


                    Also, to get the details fresh again about when Hutchinson claims to have left, etc. I thought he said he waited 45 minutes, so something like 2:00 - 2:45, but I suppose if Astrakhan man leaves shortly after that then Kelly could get to the Britannia again by 3:00 to meet another man. Again, I think I should brush up on all these, with the details of each in front of me again, particularly with your idea of the story "flash backing" as it were, in mind when having a look.

                    - Jeff
                    The 45 minutes he waited is not precisely known, and was only an estimate anyway. He only looked at a clock down on Whitechapel High Street at 1:50 or thereabouts, then he left Dorset street at 3:00. Everything in between is flexible to varying degrees.
                    So, his 45 minutes vigil could be 2:05 - 2:50, or 2:10 - 2:55, or maybe it was only 40 minutes, or was it really 50 minutes?
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Sarah Lewis identifies the same man at two different locations at different times, clearly recognising him on the second occasion she sees him. We must then assume that she would recognise him again should she see him for a third time. As her description of the man she saw doesn't match Hutchinson's description of the man he saw, then clearly the Bethnal Green Botherer/Britannia man and Astrachan man are separate individuals.

                      Hutchinson is the only person apparently to see Astrachan man. However, Hutchinson may be the man Lewis saw loitering opposite the entrance to Miller's Court or he may be the Bethnal Green Botherer/Britannia man. Going to the police may have been him attempting to deflect from be the latter and place himself as being the former.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
                        Sarah Lewis identifies the same man at two different locations at different times, clearly recognising him on the second occasion she sees him. We must then assume that she would recognise him again should she see him for a third time. As her description of the man she saw doesn't match Hutchinson's description of the man he saw, then clearly the Bethnal Green Botherer/Britannia man and Astrachan man are separate individuals.
                        Yes, correct on all counts.

                        Hutchinson is the only person apparently to see Astrachan man. However, Hutchinson may be the man Lewis saw loitering opposite the entrance to Miller's Court or he may be the Bethnal Green Botherer/Britannia man. Going to the police may have been him attempting to deflect from be the latter and place himself as being the former.
                        Hutchinson is the only witness who gave such a detailed description, but there are others who may have seen the same man.
                        - We have already mentioned Bowyer seeing a man in the court about 3:00am (Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer.), which if Hutchinson's story & timing are correct, had to be Astrachan.
                        - There is also another report from Mrs McCarthy, one of her customers told her about seeing "a funny looking man up the court this morning". Astrachan was certainly overdressed for that part of town.
                        - Finally, there is the sighting by Lewis discussed above. Though Sarah Lewis was not close enough to describe the man who accompanied the hatless, tipsy woman who entered the court ahead of her while the loiterer stood opposite Millers Court.

                        So, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that no-one else saw the same man that Hutchinson saw, evidently others did see him.
                        Which is another reason for Abberline accepting Hutchinson's story, others had already told him (Lewis), or would confirm what he saw the next day (Bowyer & Mrs. McCarthy).



                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Hi,
                          As some of you may know , I am a supporter of Hutchinson's account. I believe he was George Topping Hutchinson, father of the late Reg Hutchinson, I believe his account is true.
                          But this does not mean that A man was Mary's killer, I still believe that she was killed much later then medical opinion. and most likely met her killer around 9.am.
                          This being the case alibi's may not be appropriate.
                          Regards Richard.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Yes, correct on all counts.



                            Hutchinson is the only witness who gave such a detailed description, but there are others who may have seen the same man.
                            - We have already mentioned Bowyer seeing a man in the court about 3:00am (Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer.), which if Hutchinson's story & timing are correct, had to be Astrachan.
                            - There is also another report from Mrs McCarthy, one of her customers told her about seeing "a funny looking man up the court this morning". Astrachan was certainly overdressed for that part of town.
                            - Finally, there is the sighting by Lewis discussed above. Though Sarah Lewis was not close enough to describe the man who accompanied the hatless, tipsy woman who entered the court ahead of her while the loiterer stood opposite Millers Court.

                            So, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that no-one else saw the same man that Hutchinson saw, evidently others did see him.
                            Which is another reason for Abberline accepting Hutchinson's story, others had already told him (Lewis), or would confirm what he saw the next day (Bowyer & Mrs. McCarthy).


                            Sarah Lewis doesn't say the couple go into Miller's Court or that they even entered the passage to Miller's Court. She only says they are further along, suggesting they are of the other side of the loiterer who is in line with the passage. This places Lewis east and the couple she saw west either side of the passage entrance. If the couple were walking away from her - to the west - then they had already passed Miller's Court without entering. If they were walking towards her - to the east - then she cannot see if they pass the passage entrance or follow behind her into it.

                            If Hutchinson was the loiterer he too would've seen the couple enter the court. He mentions no other couple other than Mary Kelly and Astrachan man. If the couple Lewis saw was Mary Kelly and her killer walking away from her, then Hutchinson cannot be the loiterer as he is ahead them. If the couple Lewis saw was Mary Kelly and her killer walking towards her, then again the loiterer cannot be Hutchinson as he says Mary Kelly is already in her room when he took up his position.


                            Bowyer and Mrs McCarthy each say they saw a man, but there's no certainty that it was the same man either of them saw.

                            It's worth remembering that it didn't take long for Abberline to change his mind about the veracity of Hutchinson's statement and there must have been a reason for that.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                              Sarah Lewis doesn't say the couple go into Miller's Court or that they even entered the passage to Miller's Court. She only says they are further along, suggesting they are of the other side of the loiterer who is in line with the passage. This places Lewis east and the couple she saw west either side of the passage entrance. If the couple were walking away from her - to the west - then they had already passed Miller's Court without entering.
                              Quite correct.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                                Sarah Lewis doesn't say the couple go into Miller's Court or that they even entered the passage to Miller's Court.
                                What does this say?
                                "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. 1888.



                                If Hutchinson was the loiterer he too would've seen the couple enter the court. He mentions no other couple other than Mary Kelly and Astrachan man. If the couple Lewis saw was Mary Kelly and her killer walking away from her, then Hutchinson cannot be the loiterer as he is ahead them.
                                You're not reading what Lewis said.
                                "When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."
                                Inquest record, 12 Nov. 1888.

                                Lewis did not see the loiterer when she saw the couple walk up the court. She only noticed him standing there when she arrived at the court, which had to be a minute or two later. So, you can't argue he was there before this couple entered the court, it doesn't say that.

                                It's worth remembering that it didn't take long for Abberline to change his mind about the veracity of Hutchinson's statement and there must have been a reason for that.
                                Show me where Abberline said he changed his mind.

                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X