Hutch's Man

[JeffHamm]

Yes, if we put our personal bias aside (re: previous post) and just deal with the record as it has come down to us the picture can become clearer, alternatives do surface.

Hi Wickerman,

Well, the sighting is an "if it was true..." bit of evidence, and that means it might not be. There are good arguments for being cautious about it as well, so it's what I think of as a break point in lines of reasoning that get risky to travel beyond. If it's not true, what I suggested would fall down (which is why I started with the ever necessary "if this it was true ...", which you also rightly include). On the other hand, at least it's not necessary that Astrakhan man be "true", because Kelly would have been paid by Blotchy Face, and so at some point after that transaction may have gone out for her meal, for example.

But, returning to the "if it was a true sighting ...", and let's say it was by Lewis and she's mis-identified in this report. Lewis's testimony would move it closer to 2:30ish, and before her sighting of the man (Hutch probably) waiting at the end of Miller's Court. If the time is right but that wasn't Hutchinson, then Hutchinson's story is wrong or never happened, and the Britannia event was closer to 2:30 than 3:00. If Mrs. Lewis mis-read the clock and it was 3:30 and not 2:30, all things work again. A lot of these pieces don't fit together as they start to contradict each other, which tells us there's an error in the evidence somewhere. But that's the rub, figuring out what bits of the evidence are the wrong buts? Depending upon which piece we flag as wrong can change everything that follows, and they don't all lead to the same conclusions.

I tend to like to find these junction points, where different lines become reasonably possible, after which speculation allows us to formulate hypotheses, and sometimes those can be tested with existing data. If all reasonable hypotheses that follow are ruled out, it can suggest an answer to the previously unknown direction. Sadly, most times we're just left with more and more unconstrained possibilities.

- Jeff

[phantom]

Hi all

This may be of interest to you
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...90f646921e93d7

When the Police were investigating the Belanglo Forest murders, Ivan Milat’s (the murderer) brother Alex Milat presented to the Police with a detailed story of seeing people with two of the murder victims in the forest.

The Police were immediately suspicious because his statement was impossibly highly detailed considering the circumstances.

And while it was considered at one time that Ivan may have committed the murders with someone else i.e. one of his brothers, the Police are confident he acted alone.

Instead they think that Ivan told Alex about the murders and that Alex presented himself to the Police with his witness story as a smokescreen to deflect any future scrutiny of Ivan.

I’ve just finished the book by the lead Detective Clive Small Milat: Inside Australia’s Biggest Manhunt (highly recommended).

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Celee.

I certainly believe Hutchinson. I tend to believe all witnesses, unless we have a contrary story from someone else.
- Why would he lie?
- Why would he make himself the last person to see her alive?,
- Why would he place himself at the murder scene within the hour of her death?
- Why invent a suspect so different from every other suspect?
None of it make any sense, unless everything he said was true. There's a reason for the saying that truth is stranger than fiction.

When someone intentionally lies to police they usually make some effort to offer a reasonable suspect.

All that said, I doubt the man he saw had anything to do with her murder.

Hutchinson's story roughly plays out between 2:00 & 3:00 am. give or take any inaccuracies in the clocks referred to.
Yet, one witness a Mrs Kennedy claimed to see Mary Kelly outside the Britannia "about 3:00", she was standing close to a strange man who accosted Lewis & Kennedy the previous Wednesday evening.
So, if this sighting is true, I'm more inclined to think this stranger is the last man she took home that night - and he was the Ripper.

Re Bowyer

The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the Thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr. McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

This is another ambiguity in the overall evidence; in his official statement he does not mention this. As to whether or not he was again spoken to by the police following George Hutchinson coming forward after the inquest we may never know. But what he says in this article does go some way to corroborating Hutchinson’s statement, who stated he saw Kelly go with the man into her room at 2am and he hung around the area until 3am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, if we put our personal bias aside (re: previous post).

Not bias. Objective logic.

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor, that quote appears on the day, or just before the day, where it is published that Hutchinson story has been discredited...Irish Times? I cant recall the specific paper. The "supposed murderer" referred to was still being based on Hutchinsons remarks...partly because they agreed with Lewis's statement about Wideawake. Hutch came forward 4 days after the event, with a story that claimed to include a friendship with the deceased, and assumed the role of Wideawake, in my opinion, because Lewis created that opportunity to insert a benign persona to Loitering guy. I don't believe whomever Wideawake was that he wanted to be known, and I also don't believe he was watching out for Mary either. I think he may have been a whistling lookout or something of that nature. He may have left because as time elapsed he suspected that what was going on in that room was very dangerous to be around.

[Abby Normal]

Re Bowyer

The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the Thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr. McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

This is another ambiguity in the overall evidence; in his official statement he does not mention this. As to whether or not he was again spoken to by the police following George Hutchinson coming forward after the inquest we may never know. But what he says in this article does go some way to corroborating Hutchinson’s statement, who stated he saw Kelly go with the man into her room at 2am and he hung around the area until 3am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

in hutchs newspaper interview-he says he went and stood by marys door-could bowyer be referring to hutch and not Aman?

[Paddy]

Found this interesting in the Sheffield Independant on Wednesday 14th Nov 1888

[Sam Flynn]

Found this interesting in the Sheffield Independant on Wednesday 14th Nov 1888

I had to do a double-take there; at first glance, I read that he "repented his description", not "repeated" it

[Wickerman]

Re Bowyer

The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the Thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr. McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

This is another ambiguity in the overall evidence; in his official statement he does not mention this. As to whether or not he was again spoken to by the police following George Hutchinson coming forward after the inquest we may never know. But what he says in this article does go some way to corroborating Hutchinson’s statement, who stated he saw Kelly go with the man into her room at 2am and he hung around the area until 3am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes Trevor, Bowyer saw a man who fit the description of Astrachan.
Bowyer was only asked about finding the body and how he reported it to McCarthy & going to Commercial St.
He was never asked about seeing men coming or going at various hours of the night.

[Wickerman]

in hutchs newspaper interview-he says he went and stood by marys door-could bowyer be referring to hutch and not Aman?

Astrachan was christened "the murderer" shortly after Hutchinson gave his statement to police. So, from the 12th, Astrachan is "the murderer". This report quoted by Trevor was dated 14th, so where we read: "Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer".
This means Bowyer saw Astrachan, not Hutchinson, besides the sighting was at 3:00, Hutchinson was out in Dorset st. at that time. It's just a shame Bowyer didn't say what the man was doing. If it was Astrachan, he had to be leaving at that time, which explains why Bowyer didn't see Kelly with him.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Well, the sighting is an "if it was true..." bit of evidence, and that means it might not be.

Hi Jeff.

Sometimes we try to be too generous. A purely made up story is as rare as hens teeth. Rather than say "if it was true", we would be better equipped by saying, "if it was accurate". Any small detail that was wrong could impact the importance of the story as a whole, yet the sequence of events may still be correct.

But, returning to the "if it was a true sighting ...", and let's say it was by Lewis and she's mis-identified in this report. Lewis's testimony would move it closer to 2:30ish, and before her sighting of the man (Hutch probably) waiting at the end of Miller's Court. If the time is right but that wasn't Hutchinson, then Hutchinson's story is wrong or never happened, and the Britannia event was closer to 2:30 than 3:00. If Mrs. Lewis mis-read the clock and it was 3:30 and not 2:30, all things work again. A lot of these pieces don't fit together as they start to contradict each other, which tells us there's an error in the evidence somewhere. But that's the rub, figuring out what bits of the evidence are the wrong buts? Depending upon which piece we flag as wrong can change everything that follows, and they don't all lead to the same conclusions.

There are differences between the story given by Lewis, and the story given by Kennedy.
Lewis saw one man & a woman outside the Britannia, Kennedy saw one man & two women - the second being Kelly.
Lewis passed the Britannia half an hour earlier, and was at Millers Court by 2:30, Kennedy passed the Britannia "about 3:00".
Lewis saw a man loitering (Hutchinson?) in Dorset St., Kennedy made no mention of seeing a loiterer.
If you want to blend both stories together, try make Kennedy into Lewis, the pieces just do not fit. This dual persona cannot be in two places at the same time.

I tend to like to find these junction points, where different lines become reasonably possible, after which speculation allows us to formulate hypotheses, and sometimes those can be tested with existing data. If all reasonable hypotheses that follow are ruled out, it can suggest an answer to the previously unknown direction. Sadly, most times we're just left with more and more unconstrained possibilities.

- Jeff

Well, Lewis's story has been tested out to some degree.
And, up to a point Lewis corroborates Hutchinson.

Lewis also saw a man & woman in Dorset St. while the loiterer was present. Lewis tells us the woman was the worse for drink (just like Kelly), and wore no hat, and that this man & woman walked up the court - just like Astrachan & Kelly did, according to Hutchinson.
So, regardless what 'flash-harry' looked like, he did exist. He was seen by Lewis.

[Wickerman]

Found this interesting in the Sheffield Independant on Wednesday 14th Nov 1888

Yes, Hutchinson's story was first published in brief on the morning of the 13th, but it was anonymous.
So, when Hutchinson gave his own version of the story to the press, they compared it with the brief account from the 13th and assumed the latter confirmed the former. When in fact both stories came from the same source - Hutchinson.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

Sometimes we try to be too generous. A purely made up story is as rare as hens teeth. Rather than say "if it was true", we would be better equipped by saying, "if it was accurate". Any small detail that was wrong could impact the importance of the story as a whole, yet the sequence of events may still be correct.



There are differences between the story given by Lewis, and the story given by Kennedy.
Lewis saw one man & a woman outside the Britannia, Kennedy saw one man & two women - the second being Kelly.
Lewis passed the Britannia half an hour earlier, and was at Millers Court by 2:30, Kennedy passed the Britannia "about 3:00".
Lewis saw a man loitering (Hutchinson?) in Dorset St., Kennedy made no mention of seeing a loiterer.
If you want to blend both stories together, try make Kennedy into Lewis, the pieces just do not fit. This dual persona cannot be in two places at the same time.



Well, Lewis's story has been tested out to some degree.
And, up to a point Lewis corroborates Hutchinson.

Lewis also saw a man & woman in Dorset St. while the loiterer was present. Lewis tells us the woman was the worse for drink (just like Kelly), and wore no hat, and that this man & woman walked up the court - just like Astrachan & Kelly did, according to Hutchinson.
So, regardless what 'flash-harry' looked like, he did exist. He was seen by Lewis.

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, there are differences, but the two stories are similar enough that they could be the same story, corrupted either by re-telling or press edits. If both are independent sightings, though, then Hutch's story seems wrong (particular if the lack of a loiterer in Kennedy's version means Hutch has left, are we thinking Lewis's man is Astrakhan man, and Kennedy's man a different man?). If it's the same story corrupted through re-tellings, the skipping of some details, and so forth, is not surprising.

Lewis, at least, seems to confirm Hutch being at the end of Miller's Court. But according to Hutch, he was only there after Kelly had gone into her room, making Lewis wrong about seeing Kelly?

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, there are differences, but the two stories are similar enough that they could be the same story, corrupted either by re-telling or press edits.

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.

If both are independent sightings, though, then Hutch's story seems wrong (particular if the lack of a loiterer in Kennedy's version means Hutch has left,..

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?

.....are we thinking Lewis's man is Astrakhan man, and Kennedy's man a different man?).

"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.

If it's the same story corrupted through re-tellings, the skipping of some details, and so forth, is not surprising.

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

Lewis, at least, seems to confirm Hutch being at the end of Miller's Court. But according to Hutch, he was only there after Kelly had gone into her room, making Lewis wrong about seeing Kelly?

- Jeff

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.