Hutch's Man

[Sam Flynn]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Wickerman]

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......?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[Paddy]

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