Hutch's Man

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, so you can accept Hutch was standing watching a man & a woman in Dorset street?

If Hutch was speaking the truth, the couple he saw had already entered Miller's Court by the time he started his vigil, and he reports seeing nobody else enter the Court during that vigil - not Sarah Lewis, even, and certainly not another couple.

[Sam Flynn]

So, I can't imagine where you get that idea, I hope it wasn't from another poster who also tried to denigrate the Daily News, and purely because they wrote something he did not agree with.

I didn't get the idea from anyone else, and I'm not trying to denigrate the Daily News. You may as well suppose that I'm denigrating all the other papers who didn't report the - surely important - "fact" that Lewis saw a couple, who could well have been Kelly and her killer, entering Miller's Court. To me, it speaks volumes that the majority of reports, and indeed Lewis's witness statement, simply do not mention this couple entering the Court.

[harry]

Correct the above,post 69 has someone else reporting you said a minute or two behind.Did you say that?My question though is still the same.What is the distance in yards?

[harry]

Jon,in post 69 you report Lewis as being a minute or two behind.How far,in yards, would that be?

[Wickerman]

You didn't quote the inquest.

I asked because you might have repeated a mis-quote made in the press at the time and might have been influenced by it.

Ok, fair enough.
The inquest record c/w press coverage of this same inquest is, the inquest. All of it together is the inquest.
Some press were at the inquest so it is necessary to include their observations with the less than satisfactory official record.
Some theorists will choose to follow one account and dismiss the rest. Historians use all available accounts, that's the correct approach and, it is the best way to expose any internal errors.

You forget I'm relatively new to the finer details of the case and so come to the evidence objectively, take pinches of salt but also link information together that create a wider picture. Aside from who saw what couple and whether or not they went up the passage, I objectively have an issue with Hutchinson's account separate from any crossover with Lewis' statement

The actual inquest record, recorded by the Coroner's deputy, Mr Hodgkinson, was written down in long-hand, so there is less detail in the official account than what we read in the press who used short-hand. So we have to collate all the sources to obtain a more complete picture.

I have spoken with people who have experience with 19th century inquests, and also held detailed discussions with the head archivist at the National Archives in London.
Here is just a small section of the original record by Hodgkinson. The red circles indicate "-" a dashed line. This 'dash' replaces a question, by either the coroner or a member of the jury. Hodgkinson did not include the question, this was standard procedure. The court was only interested in the witness's answers.



Some here on Casebook have thought Sarah Lewis was telling a continuous story, but she was not. You cannot do that in court. You speak when you are spoken to, and only answer the question posed to you.

After giving the court her personal details Lewis is asked a question......(unknown)
She replies with:

"I know Mrs Keyler in Millers Court. I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning she lives at No 2 in the Court on the left on the first floor I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it"

So she is at the Keylers at 2:30, but she didn't tell the court how she got there.
Then comes the next question......(unknown)
And she replies:

"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."

If you notice, she is backtracking, not telling a continuous story, but going back to how she approached the court.
Then another question......(unknown)
To which she replies:

"I did not notice his clothes"

The above questions seemed to concern the loiterer, then the next question.......(unknown)

"another young man with a woman passed along"

As we can see Lewis was continually backtracking, this means she noticed this couple before she saw the loiterer. And this interpretation is supported by other press accounts.
I remember you saying something about Lewis mentioning the loiterer THEN talking about the couple, so the couple must be further away.
Her story was backtracking, not flowing forward so she saw the couple before she saw the loiterer.

As the presence of this couple seem to be of no consequence to the coroner, he asks again about the loiterer, question.......(unknown)

"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"

I thought it necessary to point this out so you can see that there is no indication here that a couple was further away down Dorset street. She only mentioned them after talking about the loiterer, because the coroner asked.

He is walking away from the spot he says he saw Mary Kelly and Astrachan man meet. He then apparently jumps to a location that gives him no eyeline to their position. How does he see Astrachan put his arm around Mary Kelly? How does he get to the Queen's Head pub while simultaneously witnessing Astrachan's approach when he has his back to him?

Never mind the detailed description of Astrachan, the logistics of Hutchinson's account are fairly sketchy.

You seem to be talking about the initial meeting in Commercial street now?

[Wickerman]

I have no reason to trust the Telegraph less than the Daily News, as the Telegraph is a generally reliable source. Besides, there is no earthly reason why the Telegraph should have inserted the words "further on" if they hadn't actually been uttered by the witness.

Remarks like this intrigue me.
The Daily Telegraph, Times, Standard, Morning Post, Daily News all had equal standing with regard to accuracy and respectability. So, I can't imagine where you get that idea, I hope it wasn't from another poster who also tried to denigrate the Daily News, and purely because they wrote something he did not agree with.

If the couple, possibly Mary Kelly and her killer, had indeed entered Miller's Court, don't you think that this rather more "interesting", if not important, fact would have appeared in every paper, and not just as an edited, summarised sentence the Daily News?

No I don't, and the reason is quite simple.
No-one had any idea that Kelly had been out after her liaison with Blotchy.
This was why Hutchinson's story was such a revelation, no-one thought Kelly was on the street.
Sarah Lewis didn't even mention this couple in her initial police statement. Lewis did not know Mary Kelly so it's not like she was there because she saw Mary out with a man - she had no idea who the female was. She was summoned because she saw a man loitering opposite the soon-to-be crime scene.
The passing of this couple was inconsequential to her story, they only became of supreme importance after Hutchinson told the police who that couple actually had been.

Or is it not more likely that, when reporting of LEWIS's "passing up the court", the DN reporter/editor made a mistake and thought that the couple had done so as well?

The DN did not include Lewis saying she went in the court, only the couple.

There is another small point. Lewis thought the loiterer was "waiting for someone". This makes it clear she did not associate the man standing opposite with the couple who she had just seen enter the court. Which suggests the man was not standing there at that time.
Yet, by the time Lewis arrived at the passage, "she then noticed a man standing opposite". This suggests a small measure of time between the couple walking up the passage, and the arrival of the loiterer opposite, & Lewis herself.

This again is consistent with what Hutchinson said about following behind Astrachan & Kelly.

[Curious Cat]

I asked because you might have just repeated some authors opinion, or you might have been influenced by a press story in the Star.
The fact is, and I mean 'fact' not theory, not 'opinion'. The fact is nothing has survived by Abberline about Hutchinson or his theory after his interview.
The newspaper story has no link to the police, and so has no basis in fact.

What we do read in the press following the publication of Hutchinson's story is the police initially viewed Astrachan as the prime suspect, but within 24 hours it seems the police were also showing interest in Blotchy as a second suspect.
A week after the inquest the press were reporting the police hunting for two equal suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan, this was on the 19th Nov.
We have nothing after that.




I gave you the quotes, and the sources.

You didn't quote the inquest.

I asked because you might have repeated a mis-quote made in the press at the time and might have been influenced by it.


You forget I'm relatively new to the finer details of the case and so come to the evidence objectively, take pinches of salt but also link information together that create a wider picture. Aside from who saw what couple and whether or not they went up the passage, I objectively have an issue with Hutchinson's account separate from any crossover with Lewis' statement.

He is walking away from the spot he says he saw Mary Kelly and Astrachan man meet. He then apparently jumps to a location that gives him no eyeline to their position. How does he see Astrachan put his arm around Mary Kelly? How does he get to the Queen's Head pub while simultaneously witnessing Astrachan's approach when he has his back to him?

Never mind the detailed description of Astrachan, the logistics of Hutchinson's account are fairly sketchy.

[Wickerman]

I read somewhere that Abberline distanced himself from his initial enthusiasm for Hutchinson's account within a week or so. However, to search back through where I saw that comment/post again will take me a while and it certainly won't be tonight. Far too tired.

I asked because you might have just repeated some authors opinion, or you might have been influenced by a press story in the Star.
The fact is, and I mean 'fact' not theory, not 'opinion'. The fact is nothing has survived by Abberline about Hutchinson or his theory after his interview.
The newspaper story has no link to the police, and so has no basis in fact.

What we do read in the press following the publication of Hutchinson's story is the police initially viewed Astrachan as the prime suspect, but within 24 hours it seems the police were also showing interest in Blotchy as a second suspect.
A week after the inquest the press were reporting the police hunting for two equal suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan, this was on the 19th Nov.
We have nothing after that.

Show me where Lewis said this at the inquest.

I gave you the quotes, and the sources.

[Wickerman]

Did Abberline change his mind about Hutchinson? Or was he suffering ftom selective memory loss, as he attempted to justify his own suspect, George Chapman.

What is extraordinary is how many facts he gets wrong, and how desperatly he was trying to make the "facts" fit the suspect.

For instance, he states that the murders were the work of an "expert surgeon"-highly dubious-and that Chapman studied medicine and surgery in Russia, which is wrong.

Then he states that the people who "allege" they saw JtR only saw his back (this is in order to address the age discrepancy.) But this statement is clearly absurd. It's a matter of public record that Hutchinson at least alleged he saw a suspect. And what about Lawende and Scwartz? Did Abberline believe they were both lying? Even if he did, it's equally absurd to assert that they didn't even allege that they'd seen a suspect.

But it's the same old story, officers in retirement tend to spin a yarn that is half fact, half fiction. These stories can't be relied on.

[Wickerman]

I am prepared to entertain the idea that Hutchinson was telling the truth, so bias doesn't enter into it. Whatever my opinion on Hutchinson, it doesn't alter the fact that an objective reading across all the sources - and I mean all of them - doesn't support the idea that Lewis saw the couple enter Miller's Court.

Ah, so you can accept Hutch was standing watching a man & a woman in Dorset street?
And, Hutch also described Kelly as, tipsy.
Do you also accept that Mary Cox saw Kelly earlier that night out on the street, and Kelly had no hat on?

So now, Sarah Lewis comes along saying she saw a man & woman in Dorset street, where the woman was hatless, and the worse for drink.
And, as Lewis arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite, looking up the passage.

Hutch tells us that the man & Kelly went up the passage.
Lewis tells us the couple went up the passage.
Hutch tells us Kelly & her man went inside her room.
Lewis tells us that when she reached the court, the couple were not there.

Yet you do not accept Lewis & Hutch could be talking about the same couple?

How many more points of coincidence do we need?

[Sam Flynn]

Tell me this Gareth.

Why have you chosen the "passed up the court" as the error?

I have no reason to trust the Telegraph less than the Daily News, as the Telegraph is a generally reliable source. Besides, there is no earthly reason why the Telegraph should have inserted the words "further on" if they hadn't actually been uttered by the witness.

If the couple, possibly Mary Kelly and her killer, had indeed entered Miller's Court, don't you think that this rather more "interesting", if not important, fact would have appeared in every paper, and not just as an edited, summarised sentence the Daily News?

Or is it not more likely that, when reporting of LEWIS's "passing up the court", the DN reporter/editor made a mistake and thought that the couple had done so as well?

[Wickerman]

That bit in the Daily News is obviously a mish-mash of facts, heavily edited, not a verbatim statement - the word "further on" is missing, for one thing - and in the process of hacking that statement together, the editor has botched the meaning. I'm unaware of any other source that says the couple entered Miller's Court, most of them placing the couple "further on" as Lewis walks down Dorset Street.

Tell me this Gareth.

Why have you chosen the "passed up the court" as the error?, you have said before because it only appears in one newspaper.
Yet, "further on" only appears in one newspaper. It is repeated in an evening paper, but the coverage is so greatly edited down it isn't likely the Echo had a reporter present. As with many evening papers they copy from the morning Dailies, plus there are other instances where the Echo have for sure copied from the Telegraph.
So, the only for sure example of "further on" is in the Daily Telegraph.

So, why, in your opinion, is "further on" correct, and "passed up the court" is not?

[Curious Cat]

Show me where Abberline said he changed his mind.

I read somewhere that Abberline distanced himself from his initial enthusiasm for Hutchinson's account within a week or so. However, to search back through where I saw that comment/post again will take me a while and it certainly won't be tonight. Far too tired.

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.

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.

Show me where Lewis said this at the inquest.

[Sam Flynn]

Why would the Ripper be skulking in a "domestic" dead-end like Miller's Court, when he would have been more likely to find vulnerable, homeless victims on the open streets? This tactic worked for him on three/four other occasions, and it would work for the (non-Ripper) Whitechapel murderers too.

[Busy Beaver]

All of this could have happened! Blotchy (0.00am), Astrachan Man 0.300am), The Ripper (0.400am). Would it have been possible that the Ripper was waiting at the back of millar's court somewhere near the outside toilets and just happened to notice that MJK used her room, for entertaining, waited for MJK to come out when Astrachan Man left or at some point, and put himself into position to allow him into her room? Makes sense if no-one saw people leave or enter the court around the time of the killing.