Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by caz 34 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 42 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by Sam Flynn 44 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by Herlock Sholmes 49 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by Sam Flynn 53 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by DJA 1 hour and 5 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (25 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (14 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - (4 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #291  
Old 12-24-2017, 01:16 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,763
Default

Thanks Jon. But doesn't this conflict with the idea of Lewis following the couple along Dorset St and seeing them go up the court (unless she too waited around for 3 minutes)?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 12-24-2017, 02:47 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
No doubt she saw them ahead of her "further on", so clearly they "passed along" the street. Equally then, as this couple turned into Millers Court to, "pass up the court", then Lewis would momentarily loose sight of them.
But she doesn't say that they "passed up" (or into) Miller's Court. Lewis says that she saw them "further on" as SHE turned into Miller's Court. They were not in Miller's Court when Lewis entered it, and they did not precede her into Miller's Court either. If either had been true, Lewis's statements would have unambiguously said so, and there may well have been follow-up questions from police and Coroner (e.g. "did you see them go into one of the rooms in Miller's Court?"... "Which one?"), assuming Lewis wouldn't have volunteered that information herself, which I'm pretty sure she would if she'd seen anything; she wasn't exactly backward in coming forward when it came to providing additional details in her story.

Now, I'm not saying that this couple "further on" weren't Kelly and some other bloke, nor that they might have entered Miller's Court after Lewis, but that's another matter. It's simply that evidence does not show that this couple entered Miller's Court before Sarah Lewis, but that they were "further on" - almost certainly in Dorset Street - when Lewis turned right to enter Miller's Court.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 12-24-2017 at 02:50 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 12-24-2017, 02:59 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 426
Default

Kelly and astrakhan man entered Miller's court at 2:15 AM based on Hutch's testimony - saw Kelly at 2:00 am,Kelly/Astra went in at ???, he waited 45 min,he said he went away at 3:00 am. Is 2:15 am the correct time Kelly/Astra entered Miller's court based on Hutch's testimony?
And from 2:15 am to 3:00 AM Hutch did not mention any couple or anyone entering/leaving Miller's court.Sarah came at around 2:30 AM.
__________________
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied,ex. you cannot kill,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills).
M. Pacana

Last edited by Varqm : 12-24-2017 at 03:18 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 12-24-2017, 06:22 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Thanks Jon. But doesn't this conflict with the idea of Lewis following the couple along Dorset St and seeing them go up the court (unless she too waited around for 3 minutes)?
Hi Joshua, if he had a watch we might think "three minutes" was actually "three minutes" - but then, why would he time them?
If you think back 4 days ago, how long did you wait at a stop sign (if driving), or wait to cross the road, at one specific time of day?
You simply will not know, but you will say a number, if asked. We all will, but we wouldn't really know.

All we can take from that part of Hutchinson's story is that they stopped, before both entering the passage - the actual time is not relevant because he didn't time them.
Lewis didn't say anything about this couple stopping before entering the court, likely because this couple was not the focus of the Coroner, he was interested in this loiterer, what he did and what he looked like.
Lewis is responding to the Coroner's questions, she isn't telling a continuous narrative.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 12-24-2017, 06:42 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
But she doesn't say that they "passed up" (or into) Miller's Court. Lewis says that she saw them "further on" as SHE turned into Miller's Court. They were not in Miller's Court when Lewis entered it, and they did not precede her into Miller's Court either. If either had been true, Lewis's statements would have unambiguously said so, and there may well have been follow-up questions from police and Coroner (e.g. "did you see them go into one of the rooms in Miller's Court?"... "Which one?"), assuming Lewis wouldn't have volunteered that information herself, which I'm pretty sure she would if she'd seen anything; she wasn't exactly backward in coming forward when it came to providing additional details in her story.
I guess I'm not following what you are saying. I just quoted where Lewis said those words you say she didn't say

Quote:
Now, I'm not saying that this couple "further on" weren't Kelly and some other bloke, nor that they might have entered Miller's Court after Lewis, but that's another matter. It's simply that evidence does not show that this couple entered Miller's Court before Sarah Lewis, but that they were "further on" - almost certainly in Dorset Street - when Lewis turned right to enter Miller's Court.
The important point is the mention of a man & woman, she being hatless and the worse for drink - pass up the court.
So, if there were two couples in the street at the same time, but only one of the couples entered Millers Court, how does that render Hutchinson's story invalid?

We have something like half a dozen reporters recording the same testimony, but none of them mention two couples in Dorset St.
Which should indicate what we are reading is different lines of testimony from the same witness, referring to the same couple.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 12-26-2017, 11:14 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
In actual fact he didn't.
Nowhere in the press from Friday to Monday (day of inquest), is there any suggestion that Blotchy was a prime suspect. In fact Cox's statement is not mentioned in the press as of any significance.
Plus, speculation in the press over that weekend was more in favor of Maxwell's statement, no mention of Cox.
The police didn't, and wouldn't, preempt the inquest by publicizing whom they believed was the best suspect.

Immediately following the inquest the Star wrote a column suggesting "the murderer described", when writing Cox's testimony - but that was their opinion, not that of the police.
Which is what I think prompted Hutchinson to come forward, he knew Cox could not have been the last witness to see Kelly alive.

So, Blotchy never became the prime police suspect.
Ive tried to be patient with this absurd contention of yours that Lewis and Kennedy were 2 people, but the above suggests something that is clearly misleading. Whether they publicly said Blotchy was a suspect or not between Friday aft and Monday, he is most obviously the last mans seen with Mary by any of the credible witnesses...and Ill say this once more....THE WITNESSES THAT WE KNOW KNEW MARY ...and lived in close proximity to her room. Thats Julia, Elizabeth, Maria and Mary Ann...period. There is no evidence at all that Lewis KNEW Mary, there is no evidence that Maxwell KNEW Mary, and the accounts that have her seen outside her room after midnight are ABSENT or discounted by the coroner during Inquest questioning. What you post does nothing but mislead the posters that havent studied these crimes for eons...going on 30 years in my case.

You are proving yourself as concerned with the facts as our resident I SEE LECHMERE EVERWHERE poster.

And to complete this corrective post, the Star said Hutchinsons story was discredited on the 15th. The word speaks for it itself Jon, none of your revisionist style of reciting what you think happened vs the actual facts changes that.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 12-26-2017, 11:48 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
The important point is the mention of a man & woman, she being hatless and the worse for drink - pass up the court.
Lewis does not say that she saw the couple enter the court, but that she saw the couple as SHE (Lewis) entered the court.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:04 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Lewis does not say that she saw the couple enter the court, but that she saw the couple as SHE (Lewis) entered the court.
Exactly. Hutch says he followed Mary and arman as they lingered in front of the court and then they went into the court at which point hutch made his little vigil as waiting watching man, then Lewis comes, sees hutch and then goes into the court. Even the logistics don’t allow for Lewis to see Mary and aman go up the court.

But Aman is a figment anyway so it’s a moot point.

Hutch came to find Mary and was waiting for her, or her guest to leave, when Lewis appeared.

It ain’t rocket science, although some, or one wants to make it out to be.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:16 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Ive tried to be patient with this absurd contention of yours that Lewis and Kennedy were 2 people, but the above suggests something that is clearly misleading. Whether they publicly said Blotchy was a suspect or not between Friday aft and Monday, he is most obviously the last mans seen with Mary by any of the credible witnesses...and Ill say this once more....THE WITNESSES THAT WE KNOW KNEW MARY ...and lived in close proximity to her room. Thats Julia, Elizabeth, Maria and Mary Ann...period. There is no evidence at all that Lewis KNEW Mary, there is no evidence that Maxwell KNEW Mary, and the accounts that have her seen outside her room after midnight are ABSENT or discounted by the coroner during Inquest questioning. What you post does nothing but mislead the posters that havent studied these crimes for eons...going on 30 years in my case.

You are proving yourself as concerned with the facts as our resident I SEE LECHMERE EVERWHERE poster.

And to complete this corrective post, the Star said Hutchinsons story was discredited on the 15th. The word speaks for it itself Jon, none of your revisionist style of reciting what you think happened vs the actual facts changes that.
Dear oh dear, maybe you should take more water with it Michael.

Lewis said she DIDN'T know Mary - so what on earth are you talking about now?

Could you do yourself a favor and actually reply to what is written, instead of going off on some wild goose chase of your own creation!

No-one; not press, not the public, knew about Cox's sighting until the inquest - stop deluding yourself. It doesn't matter what WE know today - of course WE know Blotchy was with Kelly at midnight - BECAUSE WE'VE ALL READ THE BLOODY INQUEST, for goodness sake - wake up man!!!

I know you can't be bothered, or possibly you don't know how to do this - but if you think the police identified Blotchy as a suspect before the Monday inquest - go ahead and post the account - or sit back down and be quiet.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:23 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Lewis does not say that she saw the couple enter the court, but that she saw the couple as SHE (Lewis) entered the court.
????
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, 13th Nov. 1888

This does not say, AS THEY passed up the court.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.