Why Wasn't Hutchinson used to try to ID Kosminski?

[Curious Cat]

At the inquest it does appear to be apropos of nothing for Sarah Lewis to be asked if she had seen any strange men in the area recently but the Mrs Kennedy story was published before the inquest. Maybe the question was asked as an act of side eye because she had gone to the press and given out details before the inquest. Or, had been talking to someone before the inquest and that person passed it onto the press but had mangled some of the details. Either way, it seems Sarah Lewis may have jumped the gun with her evidence.

But again, if we go by what Hutchinson says, the drunk woman she sees on Dorset Street cannot be Mary Kelly. She either saw her outside The Britannia or missed her completely as she was already in her room before Sarah Lewis reached Miller's Court.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

We are both Yorkshire lads?

Kernow bys vyken!

Simon

Nah!, me an your buddy Brian.

[Wickerman]

Well Jon it is different,as in an above post you have both Kelly and Astrachan leaving Kelly's room seconds after Hutchinson departed.Where is evidence for this?

I thought it was apparent I was offering a scenario.

[Wickerman]

At the inquest it does appear to be apropos of nothing for Sarah Lewis to be asked if she had seen any strange men in the area recently but the Mrs Kennedy story was published before the inquest.

Typically, a police statement contains the very reason the witness is being called to testify.
And, Sarah Lewis's police statement concerns her seeing a strange man loitering outside Millers Court, that's why she was there.

Abberline spoke with Mrs Kennedy separately, according to the press.

Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room.
Times, 12 Nov.

It would appear Mrs Kennedy fully expected to be called to the inquest by the coroner.
Another tale of a neighbour will also be told to the coroner, who will no doubt closely inquire into its veracity. A woman, whose parents live in Miller's-court, in the house opposite the room where the tragedy took place, declares that at three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way home, and she noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia Public-house.
Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov.

Maybe the question was asked as an act of side eye because she had gone to the press and given out details before the inquest. Or, had been talking to someone before the inquest and that person passed it onto the press but had mangled some of the details. Either way, it seems Sarah Lewis may have jumped the gun with her evidence.

There are no statements in the press from Sarah Lewis prior to the inquest.

But again, if we go by what Hutchinson says, the drunk woman she sees on Dorset Street cannot be Mary Kelly. She either saw her outside The Britannia or missed her completely as she was already in her room before Sarah Lewis reached Miller's Court.

I still don't see the distinction you seem to be making between her being 'spreeish' and 'in-drink'. You're the first to my knowledge to ever claim those terms cannot apply to the same person.

[Curious Cat]

Typically, a police statement contains the very reason the witness is being called to testify.
And, Sarah Lewis's police statement concerns her seeing a strange man loitering outside Millers Court, that's why she was there.

Abberline spoke with Mrs Kennedy separately, according to the press.

Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room.
Times, 12 Nov.

It would appear Mrs Kennedy fully expected to be called to the inquest by the coroner.
Another tale of a neighbour will also be told to the coroner, who will no doubt closely inquire into its veracity. A woman, whose parents live in Miller's-court, in the house opposite the room where the tragedy took place, declares that at three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way home, and she noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia Public-house.
Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov.




There are no statements in the press from Sarah Lewis prior to the inquest.



I still don't see the distinction you seem to be making between her being 'spreeish' and 'in-drink'. You're the first to my knowledge to ever claim those terms cannot apply to the same person.

It's not the term spreeish or drunk I'm referring to. It's the placement of Sarah Lewis in relation to the woman she sees in Dorset Street if going by what she and Hutchinson say were the order of events. Hutchison goes into Miller's Court and leaves again to take his place opposite the passage entrance before Sarah Lewis enters Dorset Street. Hutchinson says Mary Kelly did not leave the court once she entered it which was before Sarah Lewis entered Dorset Street. How can the woman she saw in Dorset Street be Mary Kelly?

[Sunny Delight]

At the inquest it does appear to be apropos of nothing for Sarah Lewis to be asked if she had seen any strange men in the area recently but the Mrs Kennedy story was published before the inquest. Maybe the question was asked as an act of side eye because she had gone to the press and given out details before the inquest. Or, had been talking to someone before the inquest and that person passed it onto the press but had mangled some of the details. Either way, it seems Sarah Lewis may have jumped the gun with her evidence.

But again, if we go by what Hutchinson says, the drunk woman she sees on Dorset Street cannot be Mary Kelly. She either saw her outside The Britannia or missed her completely as she was already in her room before Sarah Lewis reached Miller's Court.

It does seem like Mrs. Kennedy's version of events is a garbled version of Sarah Lewis. However it is seeing the two women and a man at the Britannia that is intriguing as Lewis said she had only seen one woman with a man. But the stories do seem rather similar and so it is very difficult to treat Mrs. Kennddy's evidence as fact due to not appearing at the inquest.

[Wickerman]

It's not the term spreeish or drunk I'm referring to. It's the placement of Sarah Lewis in relation to the woman she sees in Dorset Street if going by what she and Hutchinson say were the order of events. Hutchison goes into Miller's Court and leaves again to take his place opposite the passage entrance before Sarah Lewis enters Dorset Street. Hutchinson says Mary Kelly did not leave the court once she entered it which was before Sarah Lewis entered Dorset Street. How can the woman she saw in Dorset Street be Mary Kelly?

What I find rather odd is this:

1 - Hutchinson places himself outside Millers Court about 2:00-2:30am.
2 - Sarah Lewis saw a man standing outside Millers Court about 2:00-2:30am.

1 - At this time, Hutchinson described a man & woman walking in Dorset St.
2 - At this time, Sarah Lewis claims to see a man & woman walking in Dorset St.

1 - Hutchinson described the female as being affected by drink, and (according to Mary Cox), not wearing a hat that night.
2 - Sarah Lewis described the female as being affected by drink, and not wearing a hat.

1 - Hutchinson describes the couple as entering Millers Court, and then going into one of the rooms.
2 - Sarah Lewis described the man & woman entering Millers Court passage, and that there was no-one in the court when she got there.

Four very significant points of agreement.
Yet, you seem to reject these points to maintain, in your view, the woman must be someone else, not Mary Kelly.

And, the reason is, these two lines in Hutchinson's statement to police?

"They both then went up the court together.
I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not".

You seem to be swayed by the words "I then".

There is no time limit on "I then", it does not mean "immediately".
He could have stood there for 5 minutes, or 15 minutes, before he crossed the road.
Sarah Lewis could have also passed and entered the court while he stood opposite, only then did he walk over to check things out?
In fact, that is precisely what Lewis said at the inquest:

"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House".

It is a shame he does not mention Lewis, but it is not necessary for him to mention her, or anyone else he saw.

Yet, rather than dismiss your personal assumption (ie; immediately) as being probably wrong, given the more significant four point of agreement, you prefer to reject four points in favor of a guess, which you must admit is open to more than one possibility.

The four points listed confirm both witnesses saw the same events involving the same people in that short space of time.
Lewis confirms Hutchinson, and Hutchinson confirms Lewis.

[Wickerman]

It does seem like Mrs. Kennedy's version of events is a garbled version of Sarah Lewis.

The Evening News reporter seems to have interviewed Kennedy's family in Millers Court. Otherwise, it is not easy to explain how the journalist learned that the Gallagher family had retired early that night.

"Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before."
Evening News, 10 Nov.

We know where Sarah Lewis lived:
"I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress".

[Sunny Delight]

The Evening News reporter seems to have interviewed Kennedy's family in Millers Court. Otherwise, it is not easy to explain how the journalist learned that the Gallagher family had retired early that night.

"Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before."
Evening News, 10 Nov.

We know where Sarah Lewis lived:
"I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress".

I absolutely don't rule out the possibility that Mrs. Kennedy was a genuine witness. However one key question must be- if there were two women with the man and one was Kelly how was that not the main line of enquiry. We hear nothing in the papers nor find anything in the Police notes about the absolute imperative of tracking down this woman who would have a) had a good look, if not even knew personally the Britannia man and b) could identify the last man seen with Kelly- possibly even by name. That is my issue with Mrs. Kennedy and her statement to the press.

In regards Lewis seeing Kelly and AK man- again I am not convinced. However I can see the merit in what you are suggesting and reading her answers with obvious questions from the Coroner does give the idea some credence. Again though there are questions- Hutchinson said he stood and watched Kelly and AK man for 3 minutes. They must have been static. Hutchinson didn't move towards Crossinghams until the couple had walked through the alley and into the room. It just doesn't add up. Lewis could not have seen Hutchinson against Crossinghams and see the couple further on.

it would make sense if she said she saw a man standing at the corner of Dorset Street. He was looking down the street as if waiting for someone. Further on there was a man and woman the latter being in drink. But she doesn't. In fact she says Hutchinson was standing opposite the court looking up it as if waiting for someone. When he was watching Kelly and AK man he was at the corner of Dorset Street though.

[Curious Cat]

What I find rather odd is this:

1 - Hutchinson places himself outside Millers Court about 2:00-2:30am.
2 - Sarah Lewis saw a man standing outside Millers Court about 2:00-2:30am.

1 - At this time, Hutchinson described a man & woman walking in Dorset St.
2 - At this time, Sarah Lewis claims to see a man & woman walking in Dorset St.

1 - Hutchinson described the female as being affected by drink, and (according to Mary Cox), not wearing a hat that night.
2 - Sarah Lewis described the female as being affected by drink, and not wearing a hat.

1 - Hutchinson describes the couple as entering Millers Court, and then going into one of the rooms.
2 - Sarah Lewis described the man & woman entering Millers Court passage, and that there was no-one in the court when she got there.

Four very significant points of agreement.
Yet, you seem to reject these points to maintain, in your view, the woman must be someone else, not Mary Kelly.

And, the reason is, these two lines in Hutchinson's statement to police?

"They both then went up the court together.
I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not".

You seem to be swayed by the words "I then".

There is no time limit on "I then", it does not mean "immediately".
He could have stood there for 5 minutes, or 15 minutes, before he crossed the road.
Sarah Lewis could have also passed and entered the court while he stood opposite, only then did he walk over to check things out?
In fact, that is precisely what Lewis said at the inquest:

"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House".

It is a shame he does not mention Lewis, but it is not necessary for him to mention her, or anyone else he saw.

Yet, rather than dismiss your personal assumption (ie; immediately) as being probably wrong, given the more significant four point of agreement, you prefer to reject four points in favor of a guess, which you must admit is open to more than one possibility.

The four points listed confirm both witnesses saw the same events involving the same people in that short space of time.
Lewis confirms Hutchinson, and Hutchinson confirms Lewis.

Hutchinson says...

They walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly, and they went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away.



He waited on the corner of Dorset Street before Mary Kelly went into the court. This was before Sarah Lewis came along.

He only went into Dorset Street after Mary Kelly and the Man entered the court. He went into the court and came back out again to wait around in Dorset Street. This was before Sarah Lewis came along.

He says in the three-quarters of an hour he waited Mary Kelly and the man he saw her with did not come back out of the court. These three-quarters of an hour began before Sarah Lewis entered Dorset Street. Sarah Lewis came into Dorset Street, entered Miller's Court and was inside one of the other rooms about 25 minutes before Hutchinson left the area. If Hutchinson didn't see Mary Kelly in that time, how could Sarah Lewis have seen her?

[Wickerman]

I absolutely don't rule out the possibility that Mrs. Kennedy was a genuine witness. However one key question must be- if there were two women with the man and one was Kelly how was that not the main line of enquiry.

I agree, but we know the inquest was cut short. There are reports in the press that allude to Kennedy anticipating being called to the inquest. Rather than condemn Kennedy perhaps the fault lies with Macdonald. Kennedy may have been slated to appear on day two of the inquest, with a few others.
In the inquest version the recorder (Hammond?) noted:

"The jury had no questions to ask at this stage, and it was understood that more detailed evidence of the medical examination would be given at a future hearing".

So, the public was served short of the evidence in this case. There must have been plans for a second sitting.
This possibly, was when Kennedy would be called and the inquest would learn her story.

We hear nothing in the papers nor find anything in the Police notes about the absolute imperative of tracking down this woman who would have a) had a good look, if not even knew personally the Britannia man and b) could identify the last man seen with Kelly- possibly even by name. That is my issue with Mrs. Kennedy and her statement to the press.

I'm not sure which woman you mean. Kennedy was already there in Millers Court when the police arrived and closed it off.
The Star newspaper, in the next issue (13th) listed three suspects, as a result of the inquest c/w Hutchinson's story:

The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime. Light of a certain sort there is, but it is so confused and shifting as to be almost worse than useless. We have at least three descriptions of an individual who may be the man wanted. There is Mrs. Cox's account of a man who went with the deceased into her room about midnight on Thursday - "a short stout man, shabbily dressed," with "a blotchy face and a full carrotty moustache." There is Sarah Lewis's description of the man who accosted her on Wednesday in Bethnal-green-road, which varies slightly from the preceding, but might fit the same man. Finally, we have the statement by an anonymous witness which has found its way into the morning papers"....(ie; Hutchinson)

So although we get the impression the Britannia man was overlooked, the coroner did at least show some interest in his presence to the extent that a journalist included him as a new suspect.

In regards Lewis seeing Kelly and AK man- again I am not convinced. However I can see the merit in what you are suggesting and reading her answers with obvious questions from the Coroner does give the idea some credence. Again though there are questions- Hutchinson said he stood and watched Kelly and AK man for 3 minutes. They must have been static. Hutchinson didn't move towards Crossinghams until the couple had walked through the alley and into the room. It just doesn't add up. Lewis could not have seen Hutchinson against Crossinghams and see the couple further on.

Lewis does say she only noticed Hutchinson when she reached the passage.
As Lewis was walking down Dorset St. towards Millers Court, she could have seen the couple (further on) approaching the court, then stop and stand at the entrance to the passage, just as Hutch described.
At this point Hutch is still making his way along the south side of Dorset St., but just ahead of Lewis, who is on the north side.
The couple then walk up the passage, seconds? later Lewis herself reached the same passage, she stopped and then she noticed Hutch standing opposite looking up the court.
To me it just flows normally.

[harry]

Hutchinson gives a time of 2am when he sees Kelly coming towards him.It would only take a few minutes for the activity he describes to have taken place,so Kelly would be indoors by 2.15.Lewis did not arrive untill 2.30.How could she have seen Kelly and a companion enter the court?

[Sunny Delight]

I agree, but we know the inquest was cut short. There are reports in the press that allude to Kennedy anticipating being called to the inquest. Rather than condemn Kennedy perhaps the fault lies with Macdonald. Kennedy may have been slated to appear on day two of the inquest, with a few others.
In the inquest version the recorder (Hammond?) noted:

"The jury had no questions to ask at this stage, and it was understood that more detailed evidence of the medical examination would be given at a future hearing".

So, the public was served short of the evidence in this case. There must have been plans for a second sitting.
This possibly, was when Kennedy would be called and the inquest would learn her story.



I'm not sure which woman you mean. Kennedy was already there in Millers Court when the police arrived and closed it off.
The Star newspaper, in the next issue (13th) listed three suspects, as a result of the inquest c/w Hutchinson's story:

The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime. Light of a certain sort there is, but it is so confused and shifting as to be almost worse than useless. We have at least three descriptions of an individual who may be the man wanted. There is Mrs. Cox's account of a man who went with the deceased into her room about midnight on Thursday - "a short stout man, shabbily dressed," with "a blotchy face and a full carrotty moustache." There is Sarah Lewis's description of the man who accosted her on Wednesday in Bethnal-green-road, which varies slightly from the preceding, but might fit the same man. Finally, we have the statement by an anonymous witness which has found its way into the morning papers"....(ie; Hutchinson)

So although we get the impression the Britannia man was overlooked, the coroner did at least show some interest in his presence to the extent that a journalist included him as a new suspect.




Lewis does say she only noticed Hutchinson when she reached the passage.
As Lewis was walking down Dorset St. towards Millers Court, she could have seen the couple (further on) approaching the court, then stop and stand at the entrance to the passage, just as Hutch described.
At this point Hutch is still making his way along the south side of Dorset St., but just ahead of Lewis, who is on the north side.
The couple then walk up the passage, seconds? later Lewis herself reached the same passage, she stopped and then she noticed Hutch standing opposite looking up the court.
To me it just flows normally.

But if Hutchinson observed them as he says for three minutes or so then it doesn't add up. Lewis describes Hutchinson as being static and so Lewis and him can't be simultaneously moving through Dorset Street. In the end though I don't place much importance on the man and woman being Kelly and AK man. The important thing is she describes Hutchinson in the spot where he says he was at the time he claimed. It stands to reason that everything else he said must be in some way factual. His detractors go through such mental gymnastics as to be totally bizzarre and the simplest solution is that he told the truth.

In relation to Kennedy- she says there was a man and two women outside the Britannia. One of whom.was said to possibly be Mary Kelly. So it stands to reason that the second woman would be the key to solving the case and identifying the man- maybe even by name. Yet we never hear of Mrs. Kennedy again. Which for such an important statement is rather strange.

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson,Bowyer,and Kelly,were real people.Their existence has been firmly established.That is not the case with the person we know as Astrachan.Any reference to him doing anything can only be accepted,if the person himself is proven to have been real.
The 3o'clock sighting is a sighting of Hutchinson,not of any one else.What happened after that time,is of little value.No one witnessed a person leaving Kelly's room.

Im not sure you could characterize what we know today about the man calling himself George Hutchinson as something that establishes anything. No-ones sure. As for Astrakan, my instincts are that its at least possible Astrakan Man was Joseph Issacs, who days before the murder moved to just around the corner from Mary on Little Paternosters Row,..(I think thats the spelling), and who leaves abruptly leaving some belongings behind on the night she is killed. A Man like Astrakan Man might have been someone seen often in the neighborhood, he might be known on the streets, and as such, a great choice for someone to insert in that spot. Ive wondered if George was trying to implicate someone he disliked or felt was a danger? Using a description based on previous sightings...closer up...and in daylight.

[Wickerman]

But if Hutchinson observed them as he says for three minutes or so then it doesn't add up.

Yes, but it's only a figure of speech. We know this because he had no watch to enable him to be so precise. He told us he only knew the time because he passed the Whitechapel church before all this began. The verbal exchange he quotes between the two of them wouldn't take three minutes either.
Just a figure of speech. They paused at the entrance, exchanged a few words and then walked up the passage.

Lewis describes Hutchinson as being static and so Lewis and him can't be simultaneously moving through Dorset Street.

But Lewis didn't even see or notice Hutchinson until she stopped at the entrance, by then he had stopped walking too.

In the end though I don't place much importance on the man and woman being Kelly and AK man. The important thing is she describes Hutchinson in the spot where he says he was at the time he claimed. It stands to reason that everything else he said must be in some way factual. His detractors go through such mental gymnastics as to be totally bizzarre and the simplest solution is that he told the truth.

Iv'e never understood the almost religious desire to paint Hutchinson as a liar, but the detractors can't even agree on what he is supposed to have lied about. Their theories are all over the place, poorly thought out.

In relation to Kennedy- she says there was a man and two women outside the Britannia. One of whom.was said to possibly be Mary Kelly. So it stands to reason that the second woman would be the key to solving the case and identifying the man- maybe even by name. Yet we never hear of Mrs. Kennedy again. Which for such an important statement is rather strange.

Not all prostitutes had a good relation with police. At that time of night it's most likely that is what she was. I'm not so sure about Lewis & Kennedy either, it is known young prostitutes did go around in pairs, more often than the older ones. It's Kennedy's statement that the stranger they met on the Wednesday "refused to stand them a drink" which sounds to me like they approached him, not the other way around. Were Lewis & Kennedy both part-time prostitutes?

As for Kennedy, I wonder if what she saw that Friday morning was Kelly defending her 'patch'. The man was speaking to this 'other woman', and Kelly came up to them to warn her off?
Kennedy said she heard an exchange between the stranger & the other woman:

"The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming," whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go".

I wonder if Kennedy had just missed hearing Kelly warn the other woman off, that's why she left.