Who did Sarah See?

[The Good Michael]

We all know that Sarah Lewis saw a medium height, stout man on Friday morning at about 2:30 as she was going into Miller's Court, but who else did she see.

On Wednesday she met a strange man who tried to separate her and another woman for some purpose. Let's look at the inquest testimony about this man:

(Was he a tall man ?) - He was short, pale-faced, with a black moustache, rather small. His age was about forty.

How about his bag:

(Was it a large bag ?) - No, about 6in to 9in long. His hat was a high round hat. He had a brownish overcoat, with a black short coat underneath. His trousers were a dark pepper-and-salt.

Have you seen him since ? - On Friday morning, about half-past two a.m., when I was going to Miller's-court, I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia). He had no overcoat on.

Had he the black bag ? - Yes.

Were the man and woman quarrelling ? - No; they were talking. As I passed he looked at me. I don't know whether he recognised me. There was no policeman about.

So she saw this man twice, but after the second time she went into the Court to visit Mrs. Keyler. Again, about 2:30.

Who was this man? Do we have any other witnesses who saw this strange man?

Maybe we do. Let's look at what Hutchinson saw at roughly the same time with only some of the details that match:

Toppy 34 or 35 Lewis: about 40
Toppy Pale Lewis Pale
Toppy 5' 6" / Lewis: Short
Toppy Dark Hair and slight mustache /Lewis: Black mustache
Toppy Trousers dark / Lewis: Dark pepper and salt
Toppy: Dark jacket / Lewis: Dark short coat
Toppy: Carrying small parcel with straps / Lewis: Small black bag
Toppy: Felt hat / Lewis: high, round hat
Toppy: He was with Kelly / Lewis: he was with a woman
Toppy: near the Queen's Head /Lewis: Near the Britannia

Did Toppy see the same man as Lewis? They had very similar physical descriptions aside from Toppy's eye for minutiae. The couples were seen in the same exact area at roughly the same times Lewis at roughly 2:25 and Toppy at roughly 2:15 and of course they wouldn't have known the exact times not wearing synchronized watches. The story seems a bit different in that Toppy stepped into Dorset street before the couple did, and then watched them enter the court. Perhaps even less than one minute before, Lewis passed them, and then passed Toppy who was standing across from the Court, knowing (because he knew Kelly) that they would enter it. Thus he was waiting as Lewis suggests. As soon as Lewis entered the Keylers, Kelly and her paramour came down the Court.

What made Toppy Hutchinson's testimony so important? He corroborated Lewis suspect story and did it with a flourish. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why Hutch was believed. For if two witnesses saw someone so similar, how could Abberline NOT think it of the highest importance.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Just a quick reminder; the real Hutchinson wasn't Toppy.

But onto your more sensible points, I don't think Hutchinson saw Bethnal Green botherer. When Hutchinson claimed to have been installed opposite Miller's Court (around 2:15am) the Astrakhan man would have been ensconced within the court, whereas the Bethnal Green botherer was standing talking to a woman outside the Britannia on Commercial Street near the market at the same time.

Even if you wish to accept that Hutchinson told the truth, in spite of his discredited account, then Astrakhan man and Bethnal Green man cannot have been the same person because they could not have been in two places (Millers Court and outside Ringers) at the same time.

The better suggestion is that Hutchinson "borrowed" elements from Lewis' testimony when constructing his fictional Astrakhan suspect. This explanation would tie in perfectly with other evidence that he was aware of the contents of Lewis' testimony prior to approaching the police on the evening of the 12th November.

"What made Toppy Hutchinson's testimony so important? He corroborated Lewis suspect story and did it with a flourish. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why Hutch was believed"

Very possible, Mike.

...Until, of course, the account was discredited.

Ben

[Rubyretro]

Ben -I agree with every word you say.

My reading of Lewis's 'strange man' otherwise, is that he was a 'bit of a loony'
(of which we have all seen some of these eccentric, but harmless, types on the street -and anyone having worked in a commerce will know that they are far more frequent than one might guess).

This seems to have been a man answering to the 'Mr Joe Average' physical description described by Ben in an earlier post. In that, he has something in common with the 'loiterer' and with the sketch of Hutchinson, the witness.

He does not seem to have the astrakhan coat/ostentatious gold jewellery/spats/surly/jewish look of the man invented by Hutchinson
(Mike -if you can say 'Toppy', then I can , conversely, say 'Hutchinson').

[QUOTE]Who was this man? Do we have any other witnesses who saw this strange man[/QUOTE
Whereas A-man was a 'prime suspect' (had he existed), this man clearly wasn't the same person as A- man(neither could he be Blotchy , nor Hutch, nor the Loiterer). Who knows how hard the Police looked for this man ?
Why would they ? -he clearly was nothing to do with the murder -and had an alibi to boot !

[Ben]

Absolutely, Ruby.

Another very strong indication that the BGB wasn't the murderer is his behavior on the preceding Wednesday as described by Sarah Lewis. Is it likely that the real murderer would approach two women, request one of them to accompany him into an ally, leaving the other one to hover around as an obvious witness? Then there's the whole "reaching into a black bag" episode. If the real ripper resorted to such conspicuous antics, he wouldn't have evaded capture for very long.

I hope my recent PM shed some light on some of your queries on that other topic.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

Of course you would agree with Ben. It doesn't matter to me.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Ruby,

Of course you would agree with Ben.

It's not a 'given', Mike; It depends on the argument.

[The Good Michael]

No, it's a given. I know with Hutchinsonians which arguments are futile. That's why I don't care. The post was for people with open minds. I tried posting something asking for some documents stating that Hutchinson came to the police after the inquest because I had always thought that, but had never seen any real reports, only authors comments. I wanted to suggest that other newspaper articles may have been right, but was only looking for some direction about the orgins of the story that Hutch came after knowing the inquest was over. Instead, I got just refutation of the newspaper articles I showed with no evidence. So... again, it doesn't matter to me if you agree or disagree. I understand where your minds are. And I feel sorry for you, but I can't change your thinking.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I will add to the people who actually try and consider, the description of Lewis' scary man and A-Man are much closer than many matching descriptions of suspects given at any time. Real detectives would look at the big picture and not at at a few differences that Hutchinson may have imagined or embellished. The facts are Sarah Lewis and Toppy both say they saw suspicious couples in the exact same spot at arguably the same time. If the police didn't connect them... well they had to have.

Mike

[Lechmere]

I've got some quotes and will post them on the Hutchinson Innocent thread

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

If you read my post again, you’ll notice that I agreed with some aspects of your post and not with others. It wasn’t just a blanket dismissal of your suggestion.

I think it’s more than possible that Hutchinson’s account was initially endorsed because of his suspect’s superficial similarity with Lewis’ suspect from the Bethnal Green Road. Your suggestion that the police gave Hutchinson the initial thumbs-up for this reason even has support from the Pall Mall Gazette of 13th November 1888:

“This description, which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police.”

Clearly, there is a certain amount of confusion here on the part of the press since Lewis’ suspect was never seen in the company of the deceased, but Lewis’s BGB comes the closest to the Astrakhan man.

We part company, however, when you suggest that Lewis and Hutchinson both genuinely saw the same person. I consider it infinitely more likely that Hutchinson used Lewis’ description as a basis for his own fictional suspect, since there are other compelling indications that he was cognizant of Lewis’ account before he approached the police. It is also clear that even if Hutchinson told the truth, the Astrakhan man cannot have been the BGB (Bethnal Green Botherer) because they cannot have been in two places at the same time.

Regards,
Ben

[DVV]

if Hutchinson told the truth, the Astrakhan man cannot have been the BGB (Bethnal Green Botherer) because they cannot have been in two places at the same time.

Regards,
Ben

Mike is far too open minded to answer that.

[Abby Normal]

We all know that Sarah Lewis saw a medium height, stout man on Friday morning at about 2:30 as she was going into Miller's Court, but who else did she see.

On Wednesday she met a strange man who tried to separate her and another woman for some purpose. Let's look at the inquest testimony about this man:

(Was he a tall man ?) - He was short, pale-faced, with a black moustache, rather small. His age was about forty.

How about his bag:

(Was it a large bag ?) - No, about 6in to 9in long. His hat was a high round hat. He had a brownish overcoat, with a black short coat underneath. His trousers were a dark pepper-and-salt.

Have you seen him since ? - On Friday morning, about half-past two a.m., when I was going to Miller's-court, I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia). He had no overcoat on.

Had he the black bag ? - Yes.

Were the man and woman quarrelling ? - No; they were talking. As I passed he looked at me. I don't know whether he recognised me. There was no policeman about.

So she saw this man twice, but after the second time she went into the Court to visit Mrs. Keyler. Again, about 2:30.

Who was this man? Do we have any other witnesses who saw this strange man?

Maybe we do. Let's look at what Hutchinson saw at roughly the same time with only some of the details that match:

Toppy 34 or 35 Lewis: about 40
Toppy Pale Lewis Pale
Toppy 5' 6" / Lewis: Short
Toppy Dark Hair and slight mustache /Lewis: Black mustache
Toppy Trousers dark / Lewis: Dark pepper and salt
Toppy: Dark jacket / Lewis: Dark short coat
Toppy: Carrying small parcel with straps / Lewis: Small black bag
Toppy: Felt hat / Lewis: high, round hat
Toppy: He was with Kelly / Lewis: he was with a woman
Toppy: near the Queen's Head /Lewis: Near the Britannia

Did Toppy see the same man as Lewis? They had very similar physical descriptions aside from Toppy's eye for minutiae. The couples were seen in the same exact area at roughly the same times Lewis at roughly 2:25 and Toppy at roughly 2:15 and of course they wouldn't have known the exact times not wearing synchronized watches. The story seems a bit different in that Toppy stepped into Dorset street before the couple did, and then watched them enter the court. Perhaps even less than one minute before, Lewis passed them, and then passed Toppy who was standing across from the Court, knowing (because he knew Kelly) that they would enter it. Thus he was waiting as Lewis suggests. As soon as Lewis entered the Keylers, Kelly and her paramour came down the Court.

What made Toppy Hutchinson's testimony so important? He corroborated Lewis suspect story and did it with a flourish. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why Hutch was believed. For if two witnesses saw someone so similar, how could Abberline NOT think it of the highest importance.

Mike

Hi Mike
I thought about the same thing before also-bethnel man and A-man seemed really similar to me. I wondered if perhaps they were the same and if MK had run into Bethnel/A-man(which of course would make Hutch's A-man true). But the timing is off.

As Sarah Lewis is headed to Millers court she sees Bethnel man talking to a women. Sarah then enters Dorset and sees wideawake man/hutch as she goes into the court. By this time, acording to hutch, MK is already in her room with A-man.

But if sarah had done something (stopped to talk to someone, etc)after she saw bethnel man and failed to mention it-something that took a few minutes that gave Bethnel man the time to meet MK and go back to her place-and then Sarah went on her way to Dorset street--then we might have something.

[The Good Michael]

Abby,

The timing isn't off. Accurate time would have been nearly impossible for Hutch and Sarah Lewis to know, even with the church clock. Sarah Lewis said it was 'nearly' 2:30 as she passed the Spitalfields clock. Nearly 2:30 could easily mean 15 past or 20 past or 25 past. Hutchinson says about 2:00 he was coming down Thrawl Street. About 2? Ask anyone in the early morning without a watch what time it is and see how close they come. Let's say 2:20 and he watched them for several minutes. Let's say then that he preceded them into Dorset Street by 5 seconds. Along comes Sarah Lewis in a hurry because it's friggin' Dorset Street!. She passes the couple with scary guy, and then see Hutch immediately outside Crossinghams, Hutch knowing that Kelly will be going into the Court in a matter of seconds if she would hurry her fat a$$ along (his thoughts). Juse seconds is all this takes and just 15 - 20 minutes of error on watchless, clockless, Hutchinson.

There is no problem here.

Mike

[FrankO]

Hi Mike,

(Sorry to butt in, Abby)

The problem is that this scenario just doesn’t fit with what Lewis and Hutchinson stated:
• Hutchinson doesn’t say he preceded the couple. He says he followed them, and it’s clear from the account that he did that, and not preceded them.
• Lewis saw a man looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out, which is exactly what Hutchinson stated he did. He was waiting for someone to come out, which fits with the point above.

All the best,
Frank

[The Grave Maurice]

Geez, I hate Hutchinson threads. They're always trouble.

I think your theory is thoughtful and clever, Mike. And my mind is so open that it's virtually empty. But, like others, I see major problems with the timing.