Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

You're on the wrong track there David.
The "Respectably dressed man" was outside the Britannia, which is approx. 120ft away from Millers Court.

It may be relevant that a couple standing outside the Britannia, seen from the viewpoint of someone near the entrance to Miller's Court, would have been "further on" in Dorset Street.

[David Orsam]

You're on the wrong track there David.
The "Respectably dressed man" was outside the Britannia, which is approx. 120ft away from Millers Court.

How can one report contradict the other when the locations are so far away from each other?

Well if that's the case (and personally I'm sure it's the same incident) then you still have a big problem.

Because in the Evening Times, Mrs Kennedy said:

"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. She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed."

There's no mention of her subsequently seeing a woman talking to two men in the court.

So how does that happen? How does the Times get a completely new sighting from Mrs Kennedy on the Monday of which the Evening News was wholly unaware on the Saturday?

What must be perfectly clear to you is that we have a garbled summary of the exact same incident both of which themselves are garbled versions of the incident described by Lewis at the inquest.

[David Orsam]

It might be well to remind you that the idea Lewis & Kennedy were the same is entirely an assumption, but an assumption which contradicts the historical record.
I do not "assume" the source was Abberline, the police were not talking to the press.
I do "assume" Abberline was sufficiently awake to determine if he had just interviewed the same woman twice, under a different name?

The point is that it wasn't Abberline speaking in the Times, it was a summary by a reporter. What I'm saying is that if Miss Lewis was also Mrs Kennedy, Abberline knew it so it doesn't matter what name was used in the newspaper report,

[Wickerman]

You seem to be assuming that the source of the Times report was Abberline and further that he did not know that Sarah Lewis called herself Mrs Kennedy. Too many assumptions.

It might be well to remind you that the idea Lewis & Kennedy were the same is entirely an assumption, but an assumption which contradicts the historical record.
I do not "assume" the source was Abberline, the police were not talking to the press.
I do "assume" Abberline was sufficiently awake to determine if he had just interviewed the same woman twice, under a different name?

But what's really interesting in the extract you've posted from the Times is that it is inconsistent with Kennedy's account in the Evening News.

Hence, from the Times:

"on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men."

From the Evening News:

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

How has one man from the Evening News multiplied into two men in the Times? And how has "the deceased" in the Evening News been downgraded to "a woman" in the Times?

You're on the wrong track there David.
The "Respectably dressed man" was outside the Britannia, which is approx. 120ft away from Millers Court.

How can one report contradict the other when the locations are so far away from each other?

There is, however, a clue in the inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis who said she saw a man standing in Dorset Street when another man with a woman passed along. This itself can be matched with her police statement in which it was originally stated that she saw the first man "talking to a female" which has been crossed out. To me the Times and Evening News are reporting a garbled version of the same incident.

And you don't seem to have clarified if Sarah Lewis was in fact Mrs Kennedy's sister, as Kennedy claimed according to the Evening News report.

The "talking to a female" bit being crossed out looks like Abberline had confused the Britannia "man" (who was talking to a female), with the loiterer standing opposite in Dorset Street.

I fail to see why a Sarah Lewis would pose as a "Mrs Kennedy", yet claim her companion was her sister, if Lewis was Kennedy.
You have not explained that either.

[David Orsam]

Denying an arrest had been made, when the family of the arrested person confirmed it, is not lying to the press?
Explain the rationale there please David.

I didn't say that - I said they are not "on the record" as having lied to the press in that case. As you commented yourself it was no more than an accusation that "some officials at Scotland Yard" denied the arrest.

Yes, the second example was to demonstrate the attitude of the police towards the press (mostly from the Met.). An earlier comment from you seemed to suggest 'shock' that the police would treat the press that way.

You are wrong. I didn't say anything about shock that the police would treat the press in any way. I said it would be shocking if the police asked members of the public to lie to the press.

Here is another example:

"A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded." Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct.

The lie is also quite evident, which under the circumstances may be justified (keeping the horrific details under wraps?), but the police can & did lie to the press when the circumstances suited them.

I dare say they could but asking members of the public, who were due to give evidence at a coroner's inquest, to lie to the press is another matter entirely.