Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

Excuse me for pointing this out, but by calling Mrs Maxwell to testify to seeing Kelly after 9:00 am, then clearly Kelly had to be alive at 3:00 am.
So, once again, no need for Maxwell & Kennedy to appear.
Do you think the coroner needs to hear from every witness who claims to have seen the victim alive at various times?

Aside from all this, I am suspicious that Macdonald had already made his mind up about the time of death, likely from his time with Drs Phillips & Bond at Millers Court over the weekend.
I suspect Macdonald was aware of Bond's estimated time of death, and he may have agreed with it. So, this inquest might be more a case of going through the motions with respect to that issue.

But the Coroner told Maxwell that her evidence differed from that of others, suggesting that there was some doubt in the matter.

And, in any event, Kennedy supposedly saw Kelly in the company of a suspicious man at 3am. Now you can't be telling me that isn't highly relevant regardless of whether Maxwell's evidence was right or wrong.

[Wickerman]

But if one of the factors weighing on your mind is that Kennedy claimed to be the last person to see Kelly alive then I want to know why you think the Coroner did not call her to testify. If, however, you don't think that Kennedy could have seen Kelly alive at 3am then at least we will have made some progress.

Excuse me for pointing this out, but by calling Mrs Maxwell to testify to seeing Kelly after 9:00 am, then clearly Kelly had to be alive at 3:00 am.
So, once again, no need for Maxwell & Kennedy to appear.
Do you think the coroner needs to hear from every witness who claims to have seen the victim alive at various times?

Aside from all this, I am suspicious that Macdonald had already made his mind up about the time of death, likely from his time with Drs Phillips & Bond at Millers Court over the weekend.
I suspect Macdonald was aware of Bond's estimated time of death, and he may have agreed with it. So, this inquest might be more a case of going through the motions with respect to that issue.

[David Orsam]

Iīm sorry, David, but I am not going into that kind of a discussion. We can all see where the two storys deviate - it is quite easy - but trying to weigh it up with any sort of precision is an exercise in futility as far as Iīm concerned.

It's not just seeing where the stories deviate though Fisherman it's what conclusion can be drawn from that. You not only said to me yesterday that there were "a number of factors that do not tally" but also that this means "that the affair is and remains unclear to a degree". I wanted to know what those factors were which, in your mind, was causing the affair to be unclear. You wouldn't tell me because you claimed my question was "unnecessary" although now it's become "futile".

But if one of the factors weighing on your mind is that Kennedy claimed to be the last person to see Kelly alive then I want to know why you think the Coroner did not call her to testify. If, however, you don't think that Kennedy could have seen Kelly alive at 3am then at least we will have made some progress.

[Pierre]

I don't "want" Kennedy to be Lewis. It doesn't make any difference to me. Its just perfectly obvious to me that she was.

It is perfectly obvious to me too, David. Kennedy was Lewis.

It is not obvious that Lewis was a liar.

What exactly is the evidence for Lewis having lied about her name AND having called herself Kennedy, David?

[Fisherman]

I'm not losing track of anything Fisherman. What I am very much on the track of is that I asked you yesterday to tell me what parts of the accounts of Kennedy and Lewis don't tally and you refused, insisting my question was unnecessary.

But Jon says that Kennedy saw Mary Kelly with a suspicious man at 3am but Lewis didn't. So is that one of the things in your mind that doesn't tally?

Iīm sorry, David, but I am not going into that kind of a discussion. We can all see where the two storys deviate - it is quite easy - but trying to weigh it up with any sort of precision is an exercise in futility as far as Iīm concerned.

[Fisherman]

It's vastly more probable than the idea that they were two different witnesses.

As I said before, I agree that it seems the more probable thing. Just how more probable it is, is something I leave for people with more enthusiasm about quantifying unquantifiable things to try and judge...

[David Orsam]

That would depend, David - if Lewis and Kennedy were jointly accosted, then I can see sense in what Jon is saying, for example. If Kennedy was parrotting Lewis, as suggested by Gareth, and found out, then I can also see why the coroner did not want her to take the stand. And so on.

Please donīt loose track of what it is I am saying here.

I'm not losing track of anything Fisherman. What I am very much on the track of is that I asked you yesterday to tell me what parts of the accounts of Kennedy and Lewis don't tally and you refused, insisting my question was unnecessary.

But Jon says that Kennedy saw Mary Kelly with a suspicious man at 3am but Lewis didn't. So is that one of the things in your mind that doesn't tally?

[Sam Flynn]

Please donīt loose track of what it is I am saying here. It is NOT that I think that Kennedy and Lewis can not/would not have been one and the same. There is a very fair chance they were, and I have said that I regard it as the better suggestion as things stand.

It's vastly more probable than the idea that they were two different witnesses.

[Fisherman]

You might think he'd want them corroborated, though.

And dearly so, Gareth. But albeit Jons suggestion is not proven, nor is the suggestion that the women were one and the same. Thatīs all Iīm saying. I see a lot of sense in suggesting it, but less sense in claiming it as proven.

[Fisherman]

But I'm being told that one of the reasons Kennedy is not Lewis is because she recognised Kelly speaking to a man in Dorset Street at 3am whereas Lewis had no idea who Kelly was.

Thus we have Kennedy being reported in one newspaper as saying: "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...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."

So the Coroner chose not to call the last person to see Kelly alive? And the last person to see Kelly alive with a man??? And the last person to see Kelly alive with a man who had already accosted two women in the street??? Really? How likely is that?

That would depend, David - if Lewis and Kennedy were jointly accosted, then I can see sense in what Jon is saying, for example. If Kennedy was parrotting Lewis, as suggested by Gareth, and found out, then I can also see why the coroner did not want her to take the stand. And so on.

Please donīt loose track of what it is I am saying here. It is NOT that I think that Kennedy and Lewis can not/would not have been one and the same. There is a very fair chance they were, and I have said that I regard it as the better suggestion as things stand.

But what I am after is not somebody fervently arguing the case of the two women being one and the same - it is instead an understanding for how it is not a clear cut case. To my mind, there are sufficient material to question the identification. THAT is where I am coming from. Letīs not regard something as fact that is not proven.

[Sam Flynn]

[it is suggested that] the coroner refrained from using Kennedy at the inquest, since he did not want things repeated.

You might think he'd want them corroborated, though.

[David Orsam]

And you may have noted how Jon (Wickerman) suggested that the police DID the basics - but the coroner refrained from using Kennedy at the inquest, since he did not want things repeated.

But I'm being told that one of the reasons Kennedy is not Lewis is because she recognised Kelly speaking to a man in Dorset Street at 3am whereas Lewis had no idea who Kelly was.

Thus we have Kennedy being reported in one newspaper as saying: "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...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."

So the Coroner chose not to call the last person to see Kelly alive? And the last person to see Kelly alive with a man??? And the last person to see Kelly alive with a man who had already accosted two women in the street??? Really? How likely is that?

[Fisherman]

The police would have done the basics.

Excuse me for asking, but is this where I ask why the police did not interview all the residents of Bucks Row (if they were so keen on doing the basics), and we can start going round in circles again?

Clearly (!), from time to time, the police missed out on "the basics". And you may have noted how Jon (Wickerman) suggested that the police DID the basics - but the coroner refrained from using Kennedy at the inquest, since he did not want things repeated.

The two things we can be sure about are easily pinpointed:

1. We are not going to agree about this, and...

2. ... that is because the matter is not a clear one.

[Varqm]

"...it would come out or be known..."

Convenient!

The police would have done the basics.

[Fisherman]

Miller's court residents would have been interviewed and it would come out or be known if they had visitors the night before or that early morning,a Kennedy or any other and from there if they heard a cry.It's like how they pieced together inquiries which lead to Maria Harvey,Barnett.But there were only Prater and Lewis,none other.
But enough of this Lewis/Kennedy nonsense.

"...it would come out or be known..."

Convenient!