Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

Maybe if you had reworded your question.
It struck me you were asking a rhetorical question where we both know the answer was "yes". What I was not clear on was the point you may have been trying to make.

I didn't know you knew the answer was "yes" at all because you wrote: "It is here for the first time we read that she was wakened at 3:30 by "screams of murder, about two or three times, in a female voice". A strange thing to write if you know that it was also the last time.

My point? Well....

Do you think she was also acting under police instructions by not telling the coroner of the two or three screams that she heard?

[Flower and Dean]

Are you sure it wasn't between Prater and Cox?

Yes, I'm sure. I was talking about Lewis and Cox.

Lewis says:

I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock.

Later on she talks about the man who scared her and her friend and is asked if she's seen him again:

On Friday morning, about half-past two a.m., when I was going to Miller's-court, I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia).

She makes it very clear that her trip to Miller's Court took place at and around 2:30.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Cox starts by saying:

I last saw her alive on Thursday night, at a quarter to twelve, very much intoxicated.

Then:

I remained a quarter of an hour in my room and went out. Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again. She was singing still, and I returned to my room at three o'clock. The light was then out and there was no noise.

This means that the times Cox gives us are: 11:45 (sees Kelly and they say goodnight), around midnight (heads out), 1 AM (goes home to warm her hands), an unspecified time after 1 (is done warming her hands and heads out), 3 AM (goes home again).

Assuming she didn't warm her hands for an hour or more, she doesn't mention anything that happened around 2:30.

Even account for Prater's testimony, the three women give consistent times -- the discrepancies between Prater and Cox are in whether they heard singing, whether there was any light in Kelly's room, the cries of murder, etc. but their times don't (necessarily) contradict each other.

[Flower and Dean]

- Both Hutch and Lewis make it clear this couple did not stay in the court, they went indoors.

Where are you getting this from? Lewis (at the inquest, at least) doesn't say that the man and the woman she saw went indoors.

- Hutch implied the time at around 2:15 am, and Lewis said she was at the Keylers when the clock struck 2:30, after her sighting.

Where are you getting 2:15 as Hutchinson's implied time? Not doubting you, I'm inclined to agree, but he doesn't really say how much time passed between running into her around 2 AM and starting his wait in the court.

[Wickerman]

I didn't know you knew the answer was "yes" at all because you wrote: "It is here for the first time we read that she was wakened at 3:30 by "screams of murder, about two or three times, in a female voice". A strange thing to write if you know that it was also the last time.

It was in the statement given to the police where we read for the first time that Prater heard anything that night.
The second time was in the press coverage of the inquest.

My point? Well....

Do you think she was also acting under police instructions by not telling the coroner of the two or three screams that she heard?

See what I mean, you were focusing on the precise wording (ie; questioning her statement), whereas I was focusing on the fact she claimed to hear anything at all. In fact, that was the point of my post.

However, this is where collating the various press coverage of the inquest can be of some small benefit. The Echo actually provide her words verbatim: "Oh, Oh.....murder!"
In other words, the screams being the "Oh, Oh" bit - two screams.

It disturbed you? - Yes, it tried to get into the bed, and awoke me. That must have been about half-past four, as I heard the clock chiming. I pushed the kitten away.
Yes? - And, just as I pushed the kitten away I heard, "Oh! Murder!" It was as if it was a nightmare. It was just "Oh! Oh! (in a faint, gasping way) - Murder!"
Where did the sound seem to come from? - Up the court, somewhere.
Echo, 12th Nov. 1888.

[Wickerman]

Where are you getting this from? Lewis (at the inquest, at least) doesn't say that the man and the woman she saw went indoors.

Lewis was responding to the coroner's questions. She saw the couple pass up the court (passage), then (presumably, as she followed some distance behind), she says: "There was no-one in the court".
So, as this couple cannot vanish into thin air, and there was no other exit, then the conclusion that can safely be drawn is that she saw no-one in the court because the couple must have gone indoors.
With Lewis it is a conclusion from the sequence of events. Whereas with Hutchinson he tells us directly that he went up the court and stood outside room 13 listening.

Where are you getting 2:15 as Hutchinson's implied time? Not doubting you, I'm inclined to agree, but he doesn't really say how much time passed between running into her around 2 AM and starting his wait in the court.

Well, Harry & I agreed over that due to Hutchinson saying he left Millers Court about 3:00 am, after about 45 minutes ("about three-quarters of an hour"). Therefore, again, the reasonable conclusion is that he began his vigil about 2:15 am.

It might be worth mentioning that Sarah Lewis says the clock chimed 2:30 while she was at the Keylers, not before she arrived, nor as she entered.
What she does not say is how many minutes she had been inside the Keylers when the clock chimed. Therefore, witnessing the couple took place several minutes before the clock chimed. We cannot say anything more precise than that.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I'm sure. I was talking about Lewis and Cox.

Ok, and yes the point you were making was correct, Cox was out for approx. 2 hours (several minutes after 1:00, until she returned about 3:00 am).

I just did not remember anyone suggesting there was any conflict between Lewis & Cox. The only conflict of time I remember was that between Prater and Cox. Thats really all I was alluding to.

[Varqm]

I can offer you an example if you are prepared to read through the links & quotes.

Mrs Prater, if you recall, slept that night until about 3:30, when she was woken by a cry of "Oh, murder!'

Well, Mrs Prater was interviewed on Friday afternoon and gave her statement to police. It is here for the first time we read that she was wakened at 3:30 by "screams of murder, about two or three times, in a female voice".

Yet, the very next morning, the 10th, we read in the Daily News....

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881110.html

...that Mrs Prater had only met Kelly Thursday morning and they had a chat together.
Prater told the press nothing about hearing a cry of murder.

She was also interviewed on Saturday by the Star....

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

...and strangely, Prater unloads all manner of gossip on the Star, but makes no mention of the cry of murder she heard at 3:30 am.

Prater was also interviewed by the Daily Telegraph Friday evening, for the Saturday morning edition...

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881110.html

...and here we actually read her denial to hearing anything during the night:
"She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character."

Police did insist that witnesses speak to no-one about what they saw/heard/said, but this restriction did not extend to peripheral gossip about knowing or meeting Kelly hours before the incident.

Unless you can come up with another explanation it seems quite reasonable to accept these reports as an indication that the police requested Prater to withhold critical information from the press & her friends.

Which is why we read nothing in the press about what Sarah Lewis saw, and that nothing Lewis saw was the subject of gossip on the streets (Gareth).

First I do not know of any official order that witnesses in the murder series can't talk.You're first 2 examples are vague as they are just a recollection of Mary the person,not what she info she had,that could help,about the murder.
The third one looks promising.
But I don't believe some in the crowd would not have questions.I have witnessed car accidents,knife fights,people brandishing guns -threatening,assaults and people,some strangers, stay and asked questions.And this is not even a murder.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Not so long back you were backing the honest George Topping Hutchinson group,who had George as a somewhat respectable person ,and perfect when it came to memory recall.Now he is George the vagrant, who can't remember one day from another,flitting about from one sleeping place to another,all sleepy eyed and muddle headed.
But answer my questions,and, disregarding my ,or your, or the man in the moon's memory,what evidence do you have that Hutchinson was not the person seen by Sarah Lewis.

Aaaand you are off the mark again. How very predictable!

A/ You can live a vagrants life and be honest.

B/ Misremembering days is not dishonest.

C/ You can have a great detail memory and a lousy sequential memory.

D/ You can have a great detail memory and a very good sequential memeory and muddle the days anyway,

E/ The evidence for Hutchinson not being the man seen by Sarah Lewis is clear and comes from Hutchinson himself. He said that during his whole vigil he saw TWO people only, neither of whom was Sarah Lewis.

If you have any more problems understanding this, do not hesitate to contact me.

[Fisherman]

To add, a check on Hutchinson would have been done because if they just believe a witness and it turns out to be false they would be wasting a lot of time and work.

Of course - as far as I can tell, it is only Gareth who suggests that no such check may have been undertaken.

[Sam Flynn]

But I don't believe some in the crowd would not have questions.I have witnessed car accidents,knife fights,people brandishing guns -threatening,assaults and people,some strangers, stay and asked questions.And this is not even a murder.

And, of course, Kelly's was the latest in a sequence of highly publicised and talked-about murders, the biggest such sensation London had ever seen. The jungle grapevine would have been buzzing with stories and speculation, that's for sure.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I do not have a problem In understanding,my problem is accepting.
A vagrant is a tramp.A tramp goes,well,tramping.Hutchinson w as not tramping,he was resident in a home,He had a fixed abode.A tramp does not.
Not while he's tramping.

As to honesty,Walter Dew believed he was a liar.You wrote so,you were supporting Dew.It w as the only explanation, Dew claimed.Are you now disputing Walter Dew.Changed your mind again?

It Is not a case of misremembering,it is a case of substitution.You claim the events described by Hutchinson as happening on Thursday/Friday actually happened on Wednesday/Thursday or part of.You won't say which.you will not say how this substitution in the mind of Hutchinson came about,or when.

I'll help you.You need help.What you describe,in medical terms,is,what I mentioned in an earlier post,'An altered state of conciousness'.Now I know you will not believe me,so ask you medical expert ,Payne in the ass or whatever his name is.You'll never prove,nor will he,that Hutchinson suffered from such a condition,but ask anyway.Your theory needs proof.

So no,I do not have any problems.You have.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I do not have a problem In understanding,my problem is accepting.
A vagrant is a tramp.A tramp goes,well,tramping.Hutchinson w as not tramping,he was resident in a home,He had a fixed abode.A tramp does not.
Not while he's tramping.

vagrant
ˈveɪɡr(ə)nt/
noun
noun: vagrant; plural noun: vagrants

Synonyms: tramp, drifter, down-and-out, derelict, beggar, itinerant, wanderer, nomad, wayfarer, traveller, gypsy, rover, vagabond, transient, migrant, homeless person, beachcomber, person of no fixed address/abode, knight of the road, bird of passage, rolling stone;

You may wish to take this in, Harry - a vagrant CAN be a tramp, but if you try to read the underlined passages, you will see that we need a much broader definition. I used vagrant in the meaning of a man who - on accord of not having a fixed work - is forced to a nomading lifestyle. Just like Hutchinson, you see. In his interview from the Victoria Home, published in the Daily News on November 14, he says "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."
The place where I USUALLY sleep, that is - not the place where I live. And since he was at the Victoria Home when saying this, we can conclude that the Victoria Home was NOT his usual place. He had another place, most probably another lodging house, that he favoured, the way the murdered women also favoured specific lodging houses, but sometimes had to stay elsewhere, owing to the circumstances. They all lived vagrant lives, staying where they could, and they would all have been predisposed to muddle the days on account of this.
There really is a lot to learn out here, if you only take the chance to do so, Harry.

As to honesty,Walter Dew believed he was a liar.You wrote so,you were supporting Dew.It w as the only explanation, Dew claimed.Are you now disputing Walter Dew.Changed your mind again?

This is nuts, of course. Dew never said or thought that Hutchinson was a liar. Where you got that from is something I have no idea of. Perhaps you´d care to explain yourself?

It Is not a case of misremembering,it is a case of substitution.You claim the events described by Hutchinson as happening on Thursday/Friday actually happened on Wednesday/Thursday or part of.You won't say which.you will not say how this substitution in the mind of Hutchinson came about,or when.

Nor do I have to. All I have to do is to point out that people muddle days every now and then.

I'll help you.You need help.

We all do from time to time. If I should ever feel that need, and if it should lead me to the conclusion that you are the person I need for that help, I will take you up on your kind offer.

What you describe,in medical terms,is,what I mentioned in an earlier post,'An altered state of conciousness'.

You do not need to be in any altered state of consciousness to muddle the days.

Now I know you will not believe me,so ask you medical expert ,Payne in the ass or whatever his name is.

It´s Jason Payne-James, Harry. Here is how he describes himself:

I am a clinician, researcher, designer and author. I am a Specialist in Forensic & Legal Medicine and a Consultant Forensic Physician.

Particular areas of interest and research include deaths and care in custody, sexual assault (adult and child), drug and alcohol use, inter-personal violence, Use of Force, restraint, Taser, incapacitant spray, wound and scar interpretation, torture, non-accidental injury (adult and child), sexual assault, elder abuse, custodial medicine, driving and Road Traffic Act offences. Some of my work may be seen at http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Payne-James. I was President of the World Police Medical Officers from 2012-2014 and President of the Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine from 2015-2017.

I am a consultant and an adviser to a number of government and non-government agencies in the UK and elsewhere. I am an expert witness and an accredited mediator.


I think he is entitled to a bit more respect from your side, Harry. But I am not expecting you to realize it.

You'll never prove,nor will he,that Hutchinson suffered from such a condition,but ask anyway.Your theory needs proof.

All theories benefit from proof. Once it is there, it is no longer a theory. However, it IS proven that people muddle days every now and then. It would be much more interesting if YOU could prove that Hutchinson could not do so, since that seems to be what you are arguing.

So no,I do not have any problems.You have.

Maybe I do, Harry, maybe I do. But I don´t count you amongst them. Now, if you are to answer just one of my points, please make it the issue of your suggestion that Dew had Hutchinson down as a liar. Where on earth did you get that from...?

[Varqm]

And, of course, Kelly's was the latest in a sequence of highly publicised and talked-about murders, the biggest such sensation London had ever seen. The jungle grapevine would have been buzzing with stories and speculation, that's for sure.

Absolutely.

Interest on Joe Barnett.His last day was Saturday,the 10th.

"I have found a press account today which states that Barnett's leaving of Buller's was not voluntary. This is part of a long article in Freeman's Journal (Dublin) of 12 November 1888
The relevant passage reads:
"Inquiries for the man Barnett, who had lived with the murdered woman, at Buller's Lodging House, New Street, Bishopsgate Street, have been so numerous that the landlord states he has turned Barnett out of his house, his presence there having become a nuisance."

Chris Scott

[David Orsam]

It was in the statement given to the police where we read for the first time that Prater heard anything that night.
The second time was in the press coverage of the inquest.

How very curious. Only a short time ago, in#630, you told me the answer to my question as to whether it was the first and last time we read of two and three screams was "yes". In fact, it was so obviously "yes" that you felt it didn't need saying because "we both know the answer was "yes"". Now that answer, it seems, has magically transformed into "no" and it wasn't the last time.

Somehow you seem to think that two or three screams of murder is equivalent to a single cry of murder and a couple of faint gasps of "oh!".

I don't when a faint gasp became the same thing as a scream in the English language and I also don't know when the word "oh!" became the equivalent of the word "murder!".

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps a refresher?
Here is the account from the Star, Nov. 10th.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

It was Mrs Kennedy who said she heard a cry of "murder" (she is the one who lived in the court), and then we read:
"This story soon became popular, until at least half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience."

Kennedy Gareth, not Lewis, it was Mrs Kennedy.
Sarah Lewis is not heard of in the press until her statement on Monday 12th.

As you know, I'm firmly of the belief that either Lewis was "Mrs Kennedy", or Mrs Kennedy got wind of Lewis's story and passed it off as her own... like the other half-a-dozen women who picked up on it. Word got out, stories got conflated and distorted as they passed from person to person, and some even appropriated stories for themselves. There's no getting around it, Jon; this stuff happens, and I've no doubt that it happened here.