Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

You must really avail yourself of a map.

The quote offered by Michael, in part reads:

"......but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers."

From the murder site in Dutfields Yard there are two direct ways to get to Grove Street. The nearest via Fairclough st., and the longer via Commercial rd.
He says his second venture was along Commercial Rd., so his first search was via ?.....(answers on a post card please.....)

Sometimes we have to figure things out ourselves.

I think you have lost sight of my question. It was this:

"Where in that paragraph does it say, as you told me earlier, that "Kozebrodski went out twice, the first time along Fairclough st. with Diemschitz, they did not find a policeman"?"

You referred me to this:

"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,"

So that one doesn't seem to cut the mustard.

[David Orsam]

I don't think you've looked.

If I need to make a point I look up the answers myself, I don't expect someone else to do it for me.

Comprende?

Anyhow, several people struck matches around the body, I suppose Diemschitz didn't want to share his candle, or his missus told him to put it back those candles cost money.

The man Diemschitz & Kozebrodski brought back was Spooner.

I'm not so sure Diemschitz said her heart had ceased to beat, I thought that was from the summary.

Tell you what, you just keep making lists and I'll look everything up for you. I can even ask your questions for you when I have time.

Didn't I ask you to answer all my questions?

Somehow you missed this one: "How did the reporter, writing about an event that he had himself not witnessed, know that what he was writing about was true and correct?"

And this one:

"If, as the reporter says, Diemschitz "lifted the body up", how do you explain Diemschitz's testimony at the inquest that "He did not touch the body"?"

And this one:

"And how do you explain the fact that he also said in his inquest testimony that he met a young man in Grove Street and this young man subsequently "lifted the woman's head up"?"

And this one

"Further, how could Diemschitz possibly have known that "The body was still warm...but the heart had ceased to beat" as the reporter claimed?"

Well you suggest that this information came from "the summary" but what does that mean? How could the reporter have known whether the body was still warm and the heart had ceased to beat if he had not been told this by Diemschitz? (unless he was making it up of course!)

You tell me that Spooner was the man who Diemschitz met in Grove Street and then lifted Stride's head up. Fine so let's look at Spooner's testimony:

"No one touched the body. One of them struck a match, and I lifted up the chin of the deceased with my hand. The chin was slightly warm. Blood was still flowing from the throat..I noticed that blood was running down the gutter."

But isn't that all supposed to have happened BEFORE Diemschitz went to Grove Street according to the newspaper account you are relying on? Thus:

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood on the gutter, terminating in a hideous pool near the club door, showed but too plainly what had happened."

To me it's clear that the newspaper account on which you place so much reliance is garbled and out of sequence.

[Wickerman]

"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. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle"

I don't see your interpretation in the words above Jon,....

A handful of passages have been posted which show they went down Fairclough st. together. This is how we know that Kozebrodski accompanied Diemschitz, apparently at his request.

[Wickerman]

Didn't I ask you to answer all my questions?

Somehow you missed this one: "How did the reporter, writing about an event that he had himself not witnessed, know that what he was writing about was true and correct?"

They do it all the time.
Some details they get right, others they get wrong. This is why collating all the various reports helps us gain a better understanding of what transpired.
As official paperwork is lacking, it is only by comparing statements that we can identify contradictory claims, and sort out what the context suggests took place.

And this one:

"If, as the reporter says, Diemschitz "lifted the body up", how do you explain Diemschitz's testimony at the inquest that "He did not touch the body"?"

And this one:

"And how do you explain the fact that he also said in his inquest testimony that he met a young man in Grove Street and this young man subsequently "lifted the woman's head up"?"

Why does my answer matter?

And this one

"Further, how could Diemschitz possibly have known that "The body was still warm...but the heart had ceased to beat" as the reporter claimed?"

Well you suggest that this information came from "the summary" but what does that mean? How could the reporter have known whether the body was still warm and the heart had ceased to beat if he had not been told this by Diemschitz? (unless he was making it up of course!)

The doctors were interviewed at the crime scene, so any medical opinion offered by the reporter can easily have been obtained from Blackwell & Johnston.

You tell me that Spooner was the man who Diemschitz met in Grove Street and then lifted Stride's head up. Fine so let's look at Spooner's testimony:

"No one touched the body. One of them struck a match, and I lifted up the chin of the deceased with my hand. The chin was slightly warm. Blood was still flowing from the throat..I noticed that blood was running down the gutter."

But isn't that all supposed to have happened BEFORE Diemschitz went to Grove Street according to the newspaper account you are relying on? Thus:

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood on the gutter, terminating in a hideous pool near the club door, showed but too plainly what had happened."

No, two separate incidents.

To me it's clear that the newspaper account on which you place so much reliance is garbled and out of sequence.

I think you need to read through all the coverage and lay out any conflicting testimony/statements so whatever point you are attempting to make is clearer.

[Varqm]

According to the Star, the cry was corroborated by a whole heap of people... Maybe it was the fact that Prater and Lewis suggested roughly the same time for the cry that helped got them on the stand...?

Every room in Millers court would have been searched and everyone not allowed to leave until they gave their full statement, I think part of the reason Lewis, for ex., was only allowed to leave at 5 PM.
The police would have known the whole heap of people already and possibly produced those other people at the inquest.

[Varqm]

About the sightings???

There was no corroboration on Lewis as she walked in Dorset St. You have to take her statement as a whole.

[David Orsam]

They do it all the time.
Some details they get right, others they get wrong.

That's what I'm getting at Jon.

Even you can't deny that the reporter was wrong in saying that Diemschitz lifted the body up when he stated clearly that he did not touch the body. So it was a garbled account in the newspaper by any standards. So how and why do you trust the rest of it?

Anyway, this is all much ado about nothing because I already gave you the example of Tomkins, which example you ignored. To remind you, Tomkins did what you said wasn't done at inquests, namely speak about what other people did.

I mean, how does your point even work? Was Diemschitz supposed to be a lawyer who knew what he should and should not say at the inquest? Did someone sit down with him before he gave evidence and say "you shouldn't mention that you went to look for a policeman with another man?" It's a bizarre suggestion if that's what you are saying.

It goes back to the main point we were discussing (itself tangential to this thread) which is whether Sarah Lewis was instructed or requested by the police not to mention the cry of murder to the press. For me, there is a pattern emerging where you are seeking to draw extraordinary inferences from silence. If Lewis doesn't mention the cry of murder to the press she was told not to by the police. If Diemschitz doesn't mention Isaacs it's because he's following some sort of legal procedure.

I don't think either of your inferences are correct. What more is there to say?

[Wickerman]

Every room in Millers court would have been searched and everyone not allowed to leave until they gave their full statement, I think part of the reason Lewis, for ex., was only allowed to leave at 5 PM.
The police would have known the whole heap of people already and possibly produced those other people at the inquest.

The police appeared to have returned to Millers court a second time, on the 13th, to pursue questions. So, either they re-interviewed everyone they spoke to on the 9th, or not everyone was home on that day, which is probably the real reason.

[Wickerman]

That's what I'm getting at Jon.

Even you can't deny that the reporter was wrong in saying that Diemschitz lifted the body up when he stated clearly that he did not touch the body. So it was a garbled account in the newspaper by any standards. So how and why do you trust the rest of it?

I think you have been chasing ghosts David.
Countless times I have stressed how important it is to compare & collate all versions of a story. Precisely because of inconsistencies & inaccuracies.
I wasn't clear why you would accuse me of believing newspaper stories, I'm one of the most critical readers of press accounts.
What I have consistently objected about, both with criticisms against Hutchinson, and Kennedy, is that there is nothing in their stories that can be shown to indicate they lied, or in Kennedy's case, that she posed as Lewis.

All criticisms are modern sensationalist arguments based on nothing more than "what-ifs".

Anyway, this is all much ado about nothing because I already gave you the example of Tomkins, which example you ignored. To remind you, Tomkins did what you said wasn't done at inquests, namely speak about what other people did.

Where did I say it was not done?
You said it was "suspicious" (or implied as much), whereas I said it was nothing of the sort.
And, you do know that the expectation is for a witness to keep to, "I saw", "I said", "I did", whether any witness expands into the occasional "they", "we", or any third-person references is beside the point.

It goes back to the main point we were discussing (itself tangential to this thread) which is whether Sarah Lewis was instructed or requested by the police not to mention the cry of murder to the press.

To my mind it is a reasonable deduction based on the statement by Prater that she "heard nothing", and basically avoided sharing anything of her overnight experiences with the press.
On the one hand you seem to acknowledge widespread gossip, yet Prater does involve herself, which would be unusual.

[Varqm]

But Maurice Lewis and Caroline Maxwell were pretty straightforward witness too, but are pretty much ignored by most.

Caroline's only corroborated statement,that she saw Kelly between 8-9 AM at the Britannia, was partly corroborated by Maurice when he said he saw her at the Britannia at 10 AM.But Maurice said he knew Kelly for 5 years,Barnett said Kelly came to London 4 years ago,so back to square one.We do not know the gossips circulating as people would have theorized and reminisced.Maybe they had their press time?
But I go by the cry,the mid-range estimated time of death,3-4 AM and Lewis's sighting of a man.

[Varqm]

You make a lot of sense, and may well be spot on. But the thing I am arguing about is how you say that things are "clear". They are not. They are muddled.

As I posted every room in Millers court would have been searched and everyone not allowed to leave until they gave their full statement.They would have found out if there was a Kennedy.They did not produce a Kennedy in the inquest.The inquest statements,as far as miller's court residents were concerned,was just a repetition of what the police already knew.
Lewis clearly is saying she had no companion.And said she got accosted in Bethnal Green,went to the room across Kelly's room and stayed,and heard Oh murder.All those events clearly happened to Lewis and could not have happened collectively to no other unless there is a parallel universe.

[Varqm]

The police appeared to have returned to Millers court a second time, on the 13th, to pursue questions. So, either they re-interviewed everyone they spoke to on the 9th, or not everyone was home on that day, which is probably the real reason.

Possibly and/or to re-clarify something

[harry]

As I've written before,I am sure that either Aberline or Badham would have asked Hutchinson whether there was a middle name,and I see no reason on Hutchinson's part for declining to do so,had it been so.
Same for this sequentional memory of Thursday/Friday.I am sure either Badham or Aberline would have questioned how he(Hutchinson) could be so sure of the day/days,and starting from the trip to Romford,each element would have suggested the one following,right through to Hutchinson's return to the Victoria home on Friday morning,and as Gareth points out,the recall was only a short timespan of a few days.
I haven't posted for a week,but something happened last Sunday that prevented me doing so,but I can recall each day since,in detail, with no fear I've mistook Thursday for Wednesday.My sequential memory is fine,and my recall good.I see no reason why Hutchinson's could not be the same.

[David Orsam]

I think you have been chasing ghosts David.
Countless times I have stressed how important it is to compare & collate all versions of a story. Precisely because of inconsistencies & inaccuracies.
I wasn't clear why you would accuse me of believing newspaper stories, I'm one of the most critical readers of press accounts.
What I have consistently objected about, both with criticisms against Hutchinson, and Kennedy, is that there is nothing in their stories that can be shown to indicate they lied, or in Kennedy's case, that she posed as Lewis.

All criticisms are modern sensationalist arguments based on nothing more than "what-ifs".

I don't know about other issues but on this one you do seem to have uncritically accepted the newspaper reporting of Mrs Kennedy's story because your entire argument that Kennedy and Lewis are different women is based on identifying small discrepancies in the newspaper reports of Kennedy's story against Lewis' testimony. Without that what have you got? Two different names used, something which is not hard to explain.

My argument is neither sensationalist nor based on 'what ifs'. It is based on the fact that Kenndy and Lewis tell what is basically an identical story in respect of three separate incidents at three different periods of time.

Your whole argument is based on 'what ifs'. What if Kennedy was the close friend of Lewis who was with her at Bethnal Green? What if they were both staying the night with the Keylers? What if they both arrived in Millers Court at about the same time? What if they both heard the cry of murder?

And you say there is "nothing" to "indicate" that Kennedy lied but why, in at least one of the newspaper reports, does she refer to Lewis as her sister and a widow? I don't say that it proves she lied (because the reporter might have got it wrong) but it must surely be an indication at the very least. And no-one is saying that Kennedy posed as Lewis, rather that Lewis called herself (Mrs) Kennedy when speaking to the press.

[David Orsam]

Where did I say it was not done?

Well, Jon, what you said was "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"."

I didn't take you literally because, if I had, it would have been a very simple matter to ask you what "expectations" have to do with anything. Witnesses say what they want to say regardless of any "expectations". If you weren't saying that this expectation was actively enforced by the coroner then what's the purpose of the comment?

You said it was "suspicious" (or implied as much), whereas I said it was nothing of the sort.

"Surprising" was the word I used in respect of Lewis and Kennedy. Frankly, your entire argument is misguided because Kennedy doesn't mention Lewis and she wasn't in court, she was speaking to the press but still, according to you, seems to have been following legal "expectations".

And, you do know that the expectation is for a witness to keep to, "I saw", "I said", "I did", whether any witness expands into the occasional "they", "we", or any third-person references is beside the point.

You gave a very bad example then because there would be nothing against such expectations in saying "we ran" or "we looked at the body".

My point wasn't what you are saying it is. I was referring to a situation where these two good friends Lewis and Prater were both supposedly sat up awake in the same room and both heard a cry of murder yet neither mention any reaction of the other or of the other being there at the time. And neither mention that they were even staying the nigtht with the other, despite both mentioning each other in the context of Bethnal Green. And this applies both to the story told in court and out of court.