Hutchinsons statement....

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The reason I asked was because the late Chris Scott, Jack the Ripper researcher sine pari, discovered that 23-year-old Sarah Lewis was five months pregnant at the time of her inquest appearance. See Ripperologist 133, August 2013.

The answer should sort out if Lewis/Kennedy were one and the same.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

And you seriously think there was enough spare rooms in no. 2 Millers Court to accommodate two women, both presumably facing no. 13?

... and both of whom received female visitors in the wee small hours of the morning of Kelly's death?

I'm not one to be unduly fazed by coincidences, but there's limits.

[David Orsam]

I think we might find it difficult to establish if Mrs Kennedy was pregnant but I believe we know that Sarah Lewis' husband wasn't dead.

So how does one explain that the story in the Evening News of 10 November said:

"In connection with Mrs. Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on Wednesday night last, accosted by a man when they were walking down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight o'clock when this occurred." ?

[David Orsam]

And I have to correct you factually. Lewis saw TWO men. One standing in the court and one young man with a woman.

In fact, Sarah Lewis saw THREE men. The two above and then a third man near the Britannia with a woman. From her inquest deposition:

"On the Friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Millers Court I met the same man [as seen on the Wednesday in Bethnal Green] with a female - in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House".

Surely this matches almost exactly the story told by Mrs Kennedy as reported in the Evening News:

"Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, 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."

Aside from the mention of the "the deceased" in the Evening News, the only difference is the time but then, in her police statement, Lewis said she came to stop with the Keylors "Between 2 and 3 o'clock" so it's hardly impossibly inconsistent.

[David Orsam]

Although the focus of Sarah Lewis' testimony at the inquest was about the man she saw loitering, which is not mentioned by Kennedy in the newspapers, it should be noted that Lewis was answering a specific question at the inquest. According to the Daily Chronicle, she was asked: "Did you see anybody near the court?" It was in response to that question that she gave the story of the loitering man.

According to the Echo, she mentions the man and the woman she saw near Britannia after being asked if she'd seen anyone suspicious lately and after she recounts the Bethnal Green incident.

[Simon Wood]

Mrs Kennedy told the Press Association she was with her sister in Bethnal Green Road.

Sarah Lewis told Abberline and the inquest that she was with "another woman" in Bethnal Green Road.

Maybe it was dark, or Mrs Kennedy had a bag over her head.

[David Orsam]

Mrs Kennedy told the Press Association she was with her sister in Bethnal Green Road.

Sarah Lewis told Abberline and the inquest that she was with "another woman" in Bethnal Green Road.

Maybe it was dark, or Mrs Kennedy had a bag over her head.

Or Sarah Lewis was a prostitute and, speaking as the respectably married Mrs Kennedy, preferred to tell the Press Association that she was out in Bethnal Green with her sister, rather than touting for business with another prostitute.

Or the Press Association misunderstood what Lewis/Kennedy said.

Or Lewis/Kennedy told the full truth and the Press Association modified the story for its readers.

All kinds of possibilities Simon.

What's more important in my opinion is whether this evident inaccuracy casts doubt on the notion that "Gallagher" was her (Kennedy's) father.

[Bridewell]

Also, let's not forget, all due credit to Cox as a witness: she correctly mentioned the weather conditions - cold and wet. Hutchinson describes just about everything else in his catalogue of minutae.

We don't know whether or not Hutchinson described this. We know only that Badham didn't include it in the recorded statement. Perhaps it was left out because Hutchinson didn't allude to it; perhaps because he wasn't asked about it; perhaps because Badham saw no need to include weather conditions as the murder was an indoor event.

[Bridewell]

If the police asked around about wideawake man, and if they were acutely aware of his presence, then why is it that Hutchinsons story was dismissed? Why did his testimony not cement that he was the loiterer from Lewis´ account?

Like you yourself have pointed out, the police took great care to lay down that it was the STORY that was not believed on the whole, and not the teller of it. And Dew wrote, fifty years on, that he would not reflect on Hutchinson, who he regarded as an honest man.

To me, that means that the only reason for the police to have dismissed the story would be if Hutchinson made an honest mistake.

We know that the story was said to suffer a large but not full dismissal, and we know that the search for Astrakhan man was not called off totally as a result of the diminished belief in the story. So the police had not written the story off as false, nor did they treat Hutchinson as a liar or attention seeker - he went down in Dews memoirs as a truthful man, on whom Dew would not reflect.

So what kind of reason can you identify for the very diminished belief in the story on the police´s behalf?

Hutchinson getting the information right but the date wrong perhaps?

[Simon Wood]

According to the late Chris Scott, the family Sarah Lewis knew in Millers Court have been variously identified as the Keylers, the Keylors, the Kaylors and the Gallaghers.

Their identification is still not firmly established and is under ongoing investigation.

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson getting the information right but the date wrong perhaps?

Bang on, Colin - that certainly is a very obvious possibility. But there are those who will not accept that Hutchinson could err like that. I´m not one of them.

[Sam Flynn]

perhaps because Badham saw no need to include weather conditions as the murder was an indoor event.

Unlikely, since Hutchinson claimed to be outside for most of the time... most of the night, in fact

[Sam Flynn]

Hutchinson getting the information right but the date wrong perhaps?

Having experienced the remarkable things he claimed to have experienced, and learned that his friend had been horrifically murdered hours later, it is almost inconceivable that he'd get the date wrong.

[Sam Flynn]

But there are those who will not accept that Hutchinson could err like that.

It's not a question of not accepting that Hutchinson could get the date wrong, it's a question of how likely he was to have done so.

[Bridewell]

Having experienced the remarkable things he claimed to have experienced, and learned that his friend had been horrifically murdered hours later, it is almost inconceivable that he'd get the date wrong.

I take your point, but if he got the date wrong then it wouldn't be hours later but a day or two.