Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

Just by way of an example we see the same with the testimony of Louis Diemschitz, when he ran down Fairclough street looking for a policeman.
His testimony is based on what he did, "I ran", "I could not find", "I took", "I shouted", "I met", etc.
We all know he was with Isaac Kozebrodski at the time.

We don't "all" know that Jon and you've chosen a dreadful example to illustrate your point. The notion that the two men went to together to find a policeman comes from newspaper accounts only and these are inconsistent and contradictory. According to the Daily Telegraph of 1 Oct:

"In all haste Eagle and Kozebrodski ran out for the police, and after some delay found Constable Lamb."

No mention of Diemshitz being with them in that account. In one version of Diemschitz's statement he says "We had the police sent for at once, but I believe it was several minutes before a constable could be found." In another he goes with Kozebrodski. In Kozebrodski's "statement" in the press he says: "I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street". No indication that they went together and it's not even clear he had spoken to him at this time.

In Diemschitz's testimony he meets a "young man" in Grove Street and returns to the crime scene with him. And there he IS talking about being with another person.

[David Orsam]

You of all people know that when you are in court you are expected to limit your replies to what "you" saw, "you" heard, and what "you" did, regardless of how many people were present with you. The court is not interested in any "we's", "ours" or "they's".

You are, of course, meant to limit your evidence to what you saw or heard but that doesn't mean that you are expected to erase other people's existence from the record. Just look at the evidence of Tomkins at the Nichols inquest for a good example of what I mean. I could give you plenty of other examples.

Do you think the Keylers were out of the house too?

No, because they were presumably asleep but she does mention going to Mrs Kelyer's house. She doesn't, in other words, say she was going to her close friend's house to stay with her close friend and that they were both sitting awake at the time of the cry of murder. If they were sitting in different rooms that night it begs the question why but if they were in the same room then it is surprising that they don't mention each other also hearing the cry because it would have provoked a reaction between the two. That reaction could have been mentioned in court.

Furthermore, "Mrs Kennedy" doesn't mention Lewis in her newspaper accounts in respect of events on the night of the murder yet she is not in court and she can say what she likes. It's perfectly obvious that it's just one person.

[David Orsam]

Excuse me David, but surely you are aware how many generations of family often occupied these cheap rents. How many married couples were at the McCarthy's?
What on earth would make you so sure Mr Kennedy was not also at No.2?

Because Mr Kennedy did not exist! What makes you so sure that "Mrs Kennedy" was living at No.2? You really don't have any information to make such a claim.

[David Orsam]

As I explained earlier, the Coroner does not need two witnesses with essentially the same story.

Well now, Jon, we are the nub of the matter. It was the Coroner who decided which witnesses to call wasn't it?

In your version of events, Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy both gave statements to the police on the Friday afternoon and Mrs Kennedy then went straight off to blab to the newspapers so that her story appeared in the Evening Post that same day. So what happened to the famous police instruction to potential witnesses not to reveal the contents of their statements?

As of Friday afternoon, the Coroner couldn't possibly have decided to whom witness summonses should be sent. So Inspector Abberline couldn't have known who would be called and who would not be at the time he was speaking to the witnesses and taking their statements. It wasn't his decision. So he must have requested ALL the witnesses not to speak to the press. If he made a request of Mrs Kennedy she must have ignored it. And frankly the same would be true if Mrs Kennedy was Sarah Lewis.

But I would suggest that no such instruction or request was ever given which is why McCarthy, Barnett, Kennedy/Lewis, Prater and Maxwell all went and spoke to the newspapers after being released by the police.

[Simon Wood]

I would suggest it was the Coroner—as advised by the police—who decided which witnesses to call. It might explain why, excluding police and doctors, the only witnesses called to the inquest were the same nine who had their statements taken on Friday, 9th November.

[Sam Flynn]

I would suggest it was the Coroner—as advised by the police—who decided which witnesses to call. It might explain why, excluding police and doctors, the only witnesses called to the inquest were the same nine who had their statements taken on Friday, 9th November.

You may be right, Simon, but why didn't the police take a statement from Mrs Kennedy, nor ask her to attend the inquest? Seems to have been a glaring omission, given her prime position as a witness, and the fact that her story corroborated Sarah Lewis's in many respects.

[Simon Wood]

I believe that Mrs. Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were one and the same, a belief which mitigates your argument.

[David Orsam]

I would suggest it was the Coroner—as advised by the police—who decided which witnesses to call. It might explain why, excluding police and doctors, the only witnesses called to the inquest were the same nine who had their statements taken on Friday, 9th November.

I agree with the first sentence but would suggest that there is a danger of circularity in respect of the second. If the only statements retained by the coroner were those of witnesses who testified before him at the inquest then that alone would explain why only nine statements have survived.

If that's the case, the police could have taken 100 statements from 100 different witnesses on 9 November but we wouldn't know about them.

[Wickerman]

I can understand that - but if prostituted women ALSO wore hats, then it would have been hard to tell who was who amongst the hatbearers.

And the point I am trying to make is that we need to know how common it was not to wear a hat before we can judge how clear an indication it was that the women mentioned by Lewis/Kennedy or Lewis and Kennedy would have been Kelly. It was a prostitution district with many prostitutes, and if they signalled their trade by walking hatless, then why would we believe that the hatless woman seen by Lewis/Kennedy or Lewis and Kennedy must have been Kelly?

That´s what I´m after, Jon.

Hi Christer.
We have a number of accounts of interviews with Mrs Kennedy and the detail of who she saw as she passed the Britannia.
"There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear."

And...."Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."
Evening News, 10th Nov.

And, ".... at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man,"

The assumption that the poorly clad woman was Kelly is not a modern argument.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.
We have a number of accounts of interviews with Mrs Kennedy and the detail of who she saw as she passed the Britannia.
"There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear."

And...."Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."
Evening News, 10th Nov.

And, ".... at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man,"

The assumption that the poorly clad woman was Kelly is not a modern argument.

All very true, of course. And I have seen those passages numerous times. It´s just that I cannot help thinking that something is not quite right in this whole Kennedy/Lewis business. There is no real terra firma to stand on; that bugs me and makes me unwilling to accept many things involved.
It´s a strange thing when you feel you really, really need to try and sort out an errand that you actually want to stay as far away from as possible...

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon

I hope you are well 😊

Humph, still working for a living but otherwise can't complain.
Hope you and yours are keeping well.

Incidentally, there is no account of Hutchinson reading the papers, but suggestions have been made that the place he was staying had a reading room.

....No reporter asked anyone who this fellow was? No policeman checked out his story of being such a friend of Kelly?

All I can speak to Phil is that we have no evidence the press asked the question, though I'm not saying they didn't. However, it is my view that the police would check out what they could of Hutchinson's story.

The reason I say these things is obvious. What the man has actually done, in effect, is put himself into the spotlight of being one of, if not THE last person(s) to see Kelly alive. Any policeman would immediate think.."he could be the killer himself".
And any reporter..from the many swanning around, is bound to ask questions of the locals based upon that situation and possible suspicion.
Abberline believing his story actually makes asking questions of his background even more important, to establish any truth in said story.
Yet..nobody knows the man..apparently.

Totally agree, several have made the same argument. That he did put himself in the firing line to be a principal person of interest in this case. Not a rationale step to take if he was truly involved in the murder in some way.

I tend to think that Abberline took whatever steps he could to satisfy himself that Hutchinson's story was basically true. He doesn't need to check every little detail.

All very frustrating to my mind. Were the police SO inept?
These questions have to be asked to my mind.

I don't believe they were inept, they are not about to believe someone on their word alone.

Good to talk to you Phil.

[Wickerman]

We don't "all" know that Jon and you've chosen a dreadful example to illustrate your point. The notion that the two men went to together to find a policeman comes from newspaper accounts only and these are inconsistent and contradictory. According to the Daily Telegraph of 1 Oct:

"In all haste Eagle and Kozebrodski ran out for the police, and after some delay found Constable Lamb."

No mention of Diemshitz being with them in that account. In one version of Diemschitz's statement he says "We had the police sent for at once, but I believe it was several minutes before a constable could be found." In another he goes with Kozebrodski. In Kozebrodski's "statement" in the press he says: "I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street". No indication that they went together and it's not even clear he had spoken to him at this time.

In Diemschitz's testimony he meets a "young man" in Grove Street and returns to the crime scene with him. And there he IS talking about being with another person.

David.
Koebrodski went out twice, the first time along Fairclough st. with Diemschitz, they did not find a policeman. The second time up to Commercial Rd. thats where he found PC Lamb.

In fact if you had read Michaels post #864, you would have seen your answer.

Incidentally Michael, "at the request of Diemschitz" means Diemschitz asked Kozebrodski to accompany him.

[David Orsam]

David.
Koebrodski went out twice, the first time along Fairclough st. with Diemschitz, they did not find a policeman. The second time up to Commercial Rd. thats where he found PC Lamb.

In fact if you had read Michaels post #864, you would have seen your answer.

Incidentally Michael, "at the request of Diemschitz" means Diemschitz asked Kozebrodski to accompany him.

Jon it's amazing how you are so well informed considering that the only information about this is from garbled and inconsistent newspaper accounts.

But what you are saying happened is not what Kozebrodski was reported as saying.

He said:

"I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one."

He can't even confirm it was Deimschitz who asked him to look for a policeman let alone that he went with him to find one. And how do you know that "at the request of" means "with"?

But we are so far off topic. There are plenty of examples of witnesses talking about doing in things in the presence of others at inquests.

[Flower and Dean]

You of all people know that when you are in court you are expected to limit your replies to what "you" saw, "you" heard, and what "you" did, regardless of how many people were present with you. The court is not interested in any "we's", "ours" or "they's".
Do you think the Keylers were out of the house too? I mean Lewis doesn't mention Mr & Mrs Keyler being present either.

You're contradicting yourself a bit here...

Lewis specifically mentions that she went to stay with Mrs. Keyler. When she talks about the suspicious man, she mentions that she was with a friend. She does not go into any "we's". She simply says these things to establish what she was doing when the events she talks about happened. She mentions other people in this context of why she was in a certain place (she went to see Mrs. Keyler) or what she was doing (she was walking with a friend).

She could have talked about Kennedy in this same way. She wouldn't have needed to go into we's any more than she did to talk about Mrs. Keyler.

[Phil Carter]

Humph, still working for a living but otherwise can't complain.
Hope you and yours are keeping well.

Thank you Jon. I'm ok. Still struggling with CKD but now and again have days with more energy..hence my intermittent postings here.

Incidentally, there is no account of Hutchinson reading the papers, but suggestions have been made that the place he was staying had a reading room.

Ahh.. my memory wasnt all at sea. Thank you for correcting me and refreshing my memory!

All I can speak to Phil is that we have no evidence the press asked the question, though I'm not saying they didn't. However, it is my view that the police would check out what they could of Hutchinson's story.

Which is why I suggest the reporters would do the same, no?

Totally agree, several have made the same argument. That he did put himself in the firing line to be a principal person of interest in this case. Not a rationale step to take if he was truly involved in the murder in some way.

I tend to think that Abberline took whatever steps he could to satisfy himself that Hutchinson's story was basically true. He doesn't need to check every little detail.

ditto the above reply. Reporters would surely have tried yo follow up on his background


I don't believe they were inept, they are not about to believe someone on their word alone.

Good to talk to you Phil.

and to you Jon. Stay well

Regards

Phil