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

[Wickerman]

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.

Joseph Isaacs was in jail in Barnet Thursday night until Sunday, he was in court Monday morning.

[Wickerman]

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?

Lewis only says she was at No.2 Millers Court when the clock struck 2:30, not that she arrived at 2:30.
We don't know how long she had been at No.2 before the clock struck.

[Michael W Richards]

Joseph Isaacs was in jail in Barnet Thursday night until Sunday, he was in court Monday morning.

Never heard that before. I have read about his appearance in court the beginning of December for the watch. The reference for this is.....?

[Wickerman]

Never heard that before. I have read about his appearance in court the beginning of December for the watch. The reference for this is.....?

Here Michael.
I tracked him down some years ago, see post #10, and post #8.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...353#post498353

[Michael W Richards]

Here Michael.
I tracked him down some years ago, see post #10, and post #8.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...353#post498353

Thats a good find there Jon. First time I had seen that. And curiously, the ONLY report of that I can see. Thanks for the link.

[Wickerman]

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.....

It took me some time to find the articles, but I was going to suggest it looks like the police finally located the man.

Three females complained about a man accosting them on Thursday night (the night after Lewis & Kennedy were accosted), the story is told by Mrs Paumier:

Mrs. Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three women whom she knows on Thursday night, and that they chaffed him and asked what he had in the bag, and he replied, "Something that the ladies don't like." Mrs. Paumier told her story with every appearance of truthfulness. One of the three young women she named, Sarah Roney, a girl about 20 years of age, corroborates her statement.
Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.


Daily News, 10 Nov.
Sarah Roney, a girl about 20 years of age, states that she was with two other girls on Thursday night in Brushfield street, which is near Dorset street, when a man, wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag, came up to her and said, "Will you come with me?" She told him she would not, and asked him what he had in the bag, and he said, "Something the ladies don't like." He then walked away.


In Saturday mornings Daily News we read of the arrest, Friday night, of a man who accosted some females Thursday night.

A man was arrested late last night in Whitechapel on suspicion of being concerned in the murder. He was given into custody by some women as being a man who had accosted them on the previous night, and whose conduct was suspicious. He was taken to Commercial street Police station, followed by an immense crowd.

The Evening Chronicle of Saturday 10th Nov. reports on the arrest of two men, the first account is the one just cited above. However, the Chronicle then continues:

"Though little importance is attached to the first arrest made, the police (says the Central News) are extremely reticent, and refuse to give any information regarding the man".

Intriguing, so who was he?
The police will not release the name of a suspect unless he is charged, that much we know.The press also know this, yet the report in the Chronicle appears to imply more than the usual reluctance to release any details about this individual.
It could merely be a 'class' thing if the man was a professional, or was there another reason?

[Wickerman]

Thats a good find there Jon. First time I had seen that. And curiously, the ONLY report of that I can see. Thanks for the link.

Yes, The Barnet Press was a local paper, Barnet is in north London.
I learned that Isaacs had appeared in Barnet court on Monday 12th. As there was nothing in the national press about the case I hoped a local Barnet newspaper would have covered local court cases. I canvased libraries local to Barnet to see if they had an archive, or knew of a local newspaper archive.
It turned out that the main library in Barnet had three archived newspapers from the 1800's. I had to pay someone to search for any local court cases and send them to me.
The Barnet Press is now accessible on-line at the B.N. Archives.

[Curious Cat]

Am I chopped liver?

Lewis only says she was at No.2 Millers Court when the clock struck 2:30, not that she arrived at 2:30.
We don't know how long she had been at No.2 before the clock struck.

No, Sarah Lewis says she went to No.2 at 2:30am. She noted the time by the church clock. "Went to" suggests before arrival. She happens to confirm that she doesn't arrive at Miller's Court until just after that time as she says she passes The Britannia at "about 2:30am" as she enters Dorset Street. She makes no mention of a man walking along the south side of Dorset Street in parallel to her on the north side. Hutchinson had already followed Mary Kelly and the man into the court and left again to wait for them in Dorset Street when Sarah Lewis came along.

She only says she heard the clock strike at No.2 when she woke at 3:30am after dozing in a chair.

Going by what Hutchinson says, the drunk woman Sarah Lewis sees cannot be Mary Kelly. This has no effect on anything else Hutchinson says, as long as the woman Sarah Lewis sees is not Mary Kelly. It's only if the woman Sarah Lewis sees is Mary Kelly that a huge chunk of Hutchinson's account is pulled into question.

[Wickerman]

Am I chopped liver?

No, Sarah Lewis says she went to No.2 at 2:30am. She noted the time by the church clock.

It's not like I haven't been down this road before.
As she admits to hearing the clock chime at 3:30, then she obviously heard the same clock chime at 2:30. She was at the same location.

Inquest Testimony:

-- 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

Nothing there about "arrived".

Later, in the same testimony she says:

-- On the Friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller's Court I met the same man with a female

So, if she was already AT No.2 Millers Court when the church clock chimed 2:30 (first sentence), then she must have been on her way to Millers Court before, or "about" 2:30 (second sentence).


The Echo:
On Friday morning witness was at No. 2 Room, Miller's-court, at half-past two o'clock.

St. James Gazette:
....said she was at No 2 Room, Miller's court, at half past two o'clock on Friday morning.

Really, you must use all the sources, not just one that suits your point of view.

[Curious Cat]

It's not like I haven't been down this road before.
As she admits to hearing the clock chime at 3:30, then she obviously heard the same clock chime at 2:30. She was at the same location.

Inquest Testimony:

-- 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

Nothing there about "arrived".

Later, in the same testimony she says:

-- On the Friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller's Court I met the same man with a female

So, if she was already AT No.2 Millers Court when the church clock chimed 2:30 (first sentence), then she must have been on her way to Millers Court before, or "about" 2:30 (second sentence).


The Echo:
On Friday morning witness was at No. 2 Room, Miller's-court, at half-past two o'clock.

St. James Gazette:
....said she was at No 2 Room, Miller's court, at half past two o'clock on Friday morning.

Really, you must use all the sources, not just one that suits your point of view.

My source is the inquest page on this site.

I said...

Am I chopped liver?


No, Sarah Lewis says she went to No.2 at 2:30am. She noted the time by the church clock. "Went to" suggests before arrival. She happens to confirm that she doesn't arrive at Miller's Court until just after that time as she says she passes The Britannia at "about 2:30am" as she enters Dorset Street. She makes no mention of a man walking along the south side of Dorset Street in parallel to her on the north side. Hutchinson had already followed Mary Kelly and the man into the court and left again to wait for them in Dorset Street when Sarah Lewis came along.

She only says she heard the clock strike at No.2 when she woke at 3:30am after dozing in a chair.

Going by what Hutchinson says, the drunk woman Sarah Lewis sees cannot be Mary Kelly. This has no effect on anything else Hutchinson says, as long as the woman Sarah Lewis sees is not Mary Kelly. It's only if the woman Sarah Lewis sees is Mary Kelly that a huge chunk of Hutchinson's account is pulled into question.

I didn't say arrival time was mentioned at any point. I said the suggestion was that the time taken by the clock by Sarah Lewis was before her arrival going by her phrasing. She will have passed the church on her way to Dorset Street. You edited out the rest of my post and haven't addressed the other points I have raised about Hutchinson's account meaning Sarah Lewis cannot have seen Mary Kelly on her way into the court.

It seems it's you who doesn't want your point of view contradicted by other sources. Which ever way you try to pin it together, Hutchinson's account rules out Sarah Lewis seeing Mary Kelly.

[Joshua Rogan]

Inquest Testimony:

-- 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

Nothing there about "arrived".

But there is something that explicitly says "I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it"

Nothing about hearing the half past two chimes.

[Wickerman]

But there is something that explicitly says "I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it"

Nothing about hearing the half past two chimes.

Certainly, so as she was AT the house at 2:30, what was the time on the Spitalfields clock when she passed it? - she doesn't say.

How long did it take her to walk from the clock to the room?, 1 minute, two, three?
Pick a number, because the only definite statement she made was, she was at the room AT 2:30.

It wouldn't be wise to try place her AT the Spitalfields clock, AND, AT the room, at the same time, when they are minutes(?) apart. But nowhere does she say she was AT the Spitalfileds clock AT 2:30.

On your second point, as I pointed out before, if she could hear the 3:30 chime, why not every other chime around the clock, including the 2:30 chime?
The answer is, of course she could.

[Wickerman]

..... You edited out the rest of my post and haven't addressed the other points I have raised about Hutchinson's account meaning Sarah Lewis cannot have seen Mary Kelly on her way into the court.

I did not address the balance of your post because I addressed it previously. I explained why your point is wrong.
I don't need to do it twice.

It seems it's you who doesn't want your point of view contradicted by other sources. Which ever way you try to pin it together, Hutchinson's account rules out Sarah Lewis seeing Mary Kelly.

Which emphasizes my point, you are not using all the sources, only your preferences.

[Wickerman]

Joshua, let me offer an example.

Hutchinson says:

"About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street,..."

How does he know what the time was?

"I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church".

Had Hutchinson not been so specific (seemingly a trait of his), and left out the time, you would most likely argue the clock must have said 2:00am, and that assumption would be wrong.

So, it wasn't "about 2:00am" when he passed the clock. He estimated an allowance for the passage of time.
It's the same scenario as with Sarah Lewis (but the distance is not so far), only she did not say what the time was as she passed the clock, Hutchinson did.
Lewis only told what the time was when she arrived, and how would she know precisely? - the Spitalfield clock chimes on the half hour.

[Curious Cat]

I did not address the balance of your post because I addressed it previously. I explained why your point is wrong.
I don't need to do it twice.



Which emphasizes my point, you are not using all the sources, only your preferences.

Of the sources I have seen and the extra ones you have brought forward the fact remains that going by Hutchinson's account, Sarah Lewis cannot have seen Mary Kelly.