The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Rather a different kettle of fish, Jon. In the case of Sarah Lewis, the official = signed - record of her testimony and the Daily Telegraph both contain the key word "opposite", which unequivocally places Wideawake Man on the other side of Dorset Street from the entrance to Miller's Court.

I should perhaps add that, whereas my point about Halse allows for two mutually-supportive descriptions (three-quarters of an inch... under an inch), those in respect of Lewis's statement are contradictory (he was at the entrance to the Court... he was opposite the entrance to the Court). So the "selectivity" argument doesn't really apply here.

Actually Gareth, in 19th century parlance "opposite" also meant "in front of".

We might read in literature of the time that "Mr Brown walked down the street and stood opposite No. 47, where he decided to knock on the door".

[harry]

Fisherman,
I do not assume anything on the part of Hutchinson.The fact he did not mention Lewis means nothing.She ,in sworn testimony,puts herself at the entrance to Millers Court about 2.30am the morning Kelly was killed.He in a statement puts himself near Millers court at that time.It is a matter of belief on my part,that both were there at that time,based on their statements.On whose statement do you base your beliefs that they were not there..'Walter Dew"?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Shall we just simplify things...?
The witness Hutchinson, saw a man escort Mary Kelly back to her room at 2,am plus, he described the man , we have the description, and believe it or not, it is likely that this man either killed her, during the night, or around 9,am in the morning.
It would appear that the killer was known by the victim, and may have been dressed not in a manner as per normal, for whatever reason.
This simplification will not lead us to the killer, but it may stop all this endless unfounded accusations against a man, who happened to be just a ordinary young man lodging in the area.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Actually Gareth, in 19th century parlance "opposite" also meant "in front of".

We might read in literature of the time that "Mr Brown walked down the street and stood opposite No. 47, where he decided to knock on the door".

Nah, in this context it means 'across from' or 'facing', not 'in front of'. It's never meant 'in front of' in fact. Mr. Brown was opposite No.47 because he was facing No. 47; not because he was in front of No.47.

Likewise, Hutchinson could have been facing Millers Court. That could be what Sarah Lewis meant.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I do not assume anything on the part of Hutchinson.The fact he did not mention Lewis means nothing.She ,in sworn testimony,puts herself at the entrance to Millers Court about 2.30am the morning Kelly was killed.He in a statement puts himself near Millers court at that time.It is a matter of belief on my part,that both were there at that time,based on their statements.On whose statement do you base your beliefs that they were not there..'Walter Dew"?

Of course it means something that he did not mention Lewis. Hutchinson stated firmly that he saw a PC and a lodger, and not another soul in Dorset Street.

That means that he either did not see Lewis - or he effectively lied about it.

If you cannot see the relevance in this, then there is very little I can do for you.

And why do you ask the question "On whose statement do you base your beliefs that they were not there"? I have never said that Lewis was not there - she clearly was in Miller´s Court that night, and the Keylers will have verified when she arrived.
So there is no question about Lewis being there or not.

The only person I am questioning in this context is Hutchinson. And I use partly his own statement, telling us that he was sure that only a PC and a lodger joined him in Dorset Street on the night, and Dew´s statement, hinting at Hutchinson being out on the days.

You really cannot ask for much more - a clear denial on Hutchinson´s behalf to have seen Lewis and a clear implication on behalf of one of the serving detectives back in 1888 that Hutchinsons story belonged to another occasion than what was originally believed.

What can we put against that? A collection of modern day theorists who claim that nobody back in the day would have made the connection, who feel certain that Hutchinson lied in spite of Abberline trusting his story and who cannot see the resemblance inbetween two nearly identical signatures.

That´s a mismatch if ever I saw one.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Listen, if some of the mediocre brains here in this forum (mine included) can work out that there is a distinct possibility that Hutchinson, and the loiterer were one and the same man, then believe me, there were police officers, at the time, who most certainly were capable of making the connection.

But, if it wasn't written down that a connection was made, it didn't happen. If it wasn't mentioned that Hutchinson's story was checked out, it didn't happen. If it wasn't mentioned that Abberline had had a bowel movement within a day or two of Hutchinson's interrogation, there was was no bowel movement. I would put all these three things at about the same likelihood of happening, which means, they didn't happen.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

I'm saying that Lewis does not say when she arrived, any time after 2:00, but before 2:30 is all we can surmise.
Seeing as how she did claim the 3:30 chime woke her up, then for sure she heard the 2:30 chime. Whether this was recorded by the press or not.

She SAW the clock on Spitalfields church as she passed it. She says so! And that helped her to pin down that she reached the court at about 2.30. There is no doubt about that, Jon. At least not on my behalf.

We struggle with the fact that testimony, all testimony, was recorded in response to specific questions. The witnesses were not giving a continuous narrative to the court, so yes, their testimony can jump from subject to subject. More important though is the fact that not everything said was recorded.

There are not any implications at all that Lewis jumped from subject to subject. Her narrative is clear and comprehensive enough when it comes to the time plan - she laid down the time as being 2.30-ish as she came to the court and saw the loiterer. Any disagreeing will have to be supported by the evidence.

Christer.
We only have one example of the statement "there was no-one in the court", are you telling me that is wrong also? No-one else wrote that, it must be wrong by your estimation. Yes?

When several reporters are covering the same story, we will often identify a couple of mistakes. When referring to this 'man and woman', twice we read "further on", but one reporter wrote "later on", so thats a mistake.
In nearly all accounts the loiterer was "not tall", except one account where the 'not' has been missed, so we read "He was tall", it's a mistake.
Just like Barnett's testimony where we read he identified her by her "ear & eyes". Her ears were cut off, or at least partially removed. Her hair was her distinctive feature, not her ears. It's a mistake.

Reporters do not add a whole line or sentence out of their head "by mistake".
Occasional words are misheard yes, but a reporter is not going to tell us the 'couple' went up the court if there was no reason to write that.
Reporters are there to record what was said, not what enters their head.

If this man & woman are merely walking down Dorset St., there is no reason for any reporter to write that "they went up the court", if Sarah Lewis did not say that.
Lets not forget, this couple were superfluous to the Inquest, no-one knew who they were and no-one asked any questions about them. The Coroner was not interested in this couple.
We should be thankful that at least one reporter was diligent enough to capture that line.

But I don´t think he was diligent at all, Jon. I think he was wrong.

I can see how you reason, I really can. But what if Lewis said "another couple passed outside the court", "another couple went by, by the court" or something to that effect?
Such a thing could very easily be misunderstood and misinterpreted. And since the court was empty as she entered it, not much faith can be ascribed to the Daily News only getting it right. Not the way I see it.

Cleary, you will not budge, and that´s fine by me. But the fact of the matter is that I have looked very closely at this for one reason - and that reason is that I normally put much trust in your take on things. I respect your knowledge and I always try to keen an open mind when you suggest something.

On this, however, you do not stand a chance of being right, as far as I can see. You put far too much trust in obviously faulty wordings, and you disregard important factors that needs to be weighed in. No matter how I scrutinize it, I come to the same conclusion. So in this errand, I deeply disagree with you. Maybe that´s as it should be.

The presence of one woman hurrying along Dorset St. is of no consequence to the story Hutchinson has to relate.

But she did not just hurry along Dorset Street, did she? No, she actually entered Miller´s Court, the very court Hutch was watching!
And even if we were to accept that she was of no consequence, what consequence was the lodger he mentioned of?
Finally, even if Hutch chose to think that Lewis was inconsequential - why would he press the point that none other than the PC and the lodger - both totally inconsequential too! - were the ONLY people in Dorset Street apart from himself?
This is an important question, Jon. It ought not be swept aside.

Sadly, we are dealing with a mixture of verbatim testimony and paraphrase. At no point does Lewis say what her vantage point was, plus we know she was moving. We shouldn't assume she had to squeeze past anybody.

If it is all paraphrase and mixtures - why would not "there was another couple too who passed up the court" be more of the same...? But fair enough - you are correct in saying that there need not have been any squeezing - but it would not have left the court empty at any rate!

The insurmountable problem Christer is, that anything proposed which legitimizes Hutchinson is fought off tooth and nail
I don't see evidence as the problem, it's that a variety of people have chosen to treat Hutchinson's story with little faith. To suddenly see they may have been mistaken is too much to admit.

We will not see THAT happen, Jon! But I agree totally, of course. However, you and me do not suffer from this particular disease, so we should be able to steer clear of that problem.
Of course, we have other ailments and are smitten with other things ...

Always a pleasure, Christer.

True enough - it always is! But maybe we have taken it as far as we can by now?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Actually Gareth, in 19th century parlance "opposite" also meant "in front of".

But it's not just "opposite", John - Lewis says he was opposite the Court, standing in Dorset Street, outside the lodging house. Plus, whilst Lewis mentions his stout-ish-ness and his headgear, she could not describe him otherwise. Not so much as a moustache, beard, hair, or complexion mentioned. This was clearly not someone she'd brushed past as she entered Miller's Court. He was opposite Miller's Court, in the most accepted sense of that word, and evidently some distance away from her.

[Sam Flynn]

The insurmountable problem Christer is, that anything proposed which legitimizes Hutchinson is fought off tooth and nail.

It's not my intention to de-legitimise Hutchinson in the context of Lewis's testimony, Jon. The fact remains that she saw somebody as she entered Miller's Court, and that may have been Hutchinson - it's just that her testimony quite clearly locates him on the opposite side of the street. No problem there, either, for it's almost inevitable that Hutchinson would have been in Dorset Street at some point, possibly idling outside Crossingham's and watching the entrance to the Court.

The point is that Lewis's testimony doesn't describe someone hanging on the entrance of Miller's Court, but it doesn't have to. It's enough that she saw a loiterer who was apparently fixated on the entrance that led to Kelly's room, and that loiterer could have been Hutchinson, whether one believes he was a witness or the murderer.

Personally, I don't think the man she saw was Hutchinson at all, but that's another matter.

[Wickerman]

We should be thankful that at least one reporter was diligent enough to capture that line.

But I don´t think he was diligent at all, Jon. I think he was wrong.

I do understand that, but 'why' do you think it is wrong? You must have a reason.

Leave aside the timing issue & location of when/where Lewis saw this loiterer.

Just consider the other three points.

- That this couple walked up the court.
Suggested by Daily News, confirmed by Hutchinson.

- That the woman was hatless.
Suggested by Daily News, confirmed by Mary Cox.

- That the woman was the worse for drink.
Suggested by Daily News (and Daily Telegraph), confirmed by Hutchinson.

Explain how these three points offered by the DN can be wrong, when, in each case, they are confirmed by an unrelated source.

You will agree, that in the academic world preference is always to find confirmation from an outside/unrelated source?
(I admit, the sources are less than scholarly - but we must work with what we have)
So lets try to apply that same reasoning to this small problem.

[Wickerman]

It's not my intention to de-legitimise Hutchinson in the context of Lewis's testimony, Jon. The fact remains that she saw somebody as she entered Miller's Court, and that may have been Hutchinson - it's just that her testimony quite clearly locates him on the opposite side of the street. No problem there, either, for it's almost inevitable that Hutchinson would have been in Dorset Street at some point, possibly idling outside Crossingham's and watching the entrance to the Court.

The point is that Lewis's testimony doesn't describe someone hanging on the entrance of Miller's Court, but it doesn't have to. It's enough that she saw a loiterer who was apparently fixated on the entrance that led to Kelly's room, and that loiterer could have been Hutchinson, whether one believes he was a witness or the murderer.

Agreed, the fact remains she saw him (or, someone), and as Hutchinson claims to be there, it is not a stretch of the imagination to accept that the loiterer was him.

Personally, I don't think the man she saw was Hutchinson at all, but that's another matter.

Well, we have a strong indication (by admission) that it was him, and no indication that it was not.

[Wickerman]

Nah, in this context it means 'across from' or 'facing', not 'in front of'. It's never meant 'in front of' in fact. Mr. Brown was opposite No.47 because he was facing No. 47; not because he was in front of No.47.

Likewise, Hutchinson could have been facing Millers Court. That could be what Sarah Lewis meant.

Well, lets just pretend that someone standing facing a door is standing in front of the door shall we, good grief!

[Wickerman]

I should perhaps add that, whereas my point about Halse allows for two mutually-supportive descriptions (three-quarters of an inch... under an inch), those in respect of Lewis's statement are contradictory (he was at the entrance to the Court... he was opposite the entrance to the Court). So the "selectivity" argument doesn't really apply here.

The point I was making Gareth was, that in one case you are prepared to accept that two separate statements may have been offered by the witness, but that two different reporters published only one statement each, coincidentally, not the same one.

This is the scenario I also offered as a possibility in the case of Sarah Lewis which you did not appear to accept. And yet, of at least 18 published sources available who covered the Inquest, selectivity on behalf of the reporters is apparent.

[Sally]

Well, lets just pretend that someone standing facing a door is standing in front of the door shall we, good grief!

Sure, Jon - you pretend as you like. The two are not synonymous. 'in front of' always implies proximity; whereas 'facing' could, but doesn't necessarily; it depends on the context. I think even people in olden times knew that. 'Opposite' doesn't mean 'in front of'.

'Opposite' in this context therefore might well have meant 'facing' but almost certainly didn't mean 'in front of'.

[Fisherman]

I do understand that, but 'why' do you think it is wrong? You must have a reason.

Leave aside the timing issue & location of when/where Lewis saw this loiterer.

Just consider the other three points.

- That this couple walked up the court.
Suggested by Daily News, confirmed by Hutchinson.

- That the woman was hatless.
Suggested by Daily News, confirmed by Mary Cox.

- That the woman was the worse for drink.
Suggested by Daily News (and Daily Telegraph), confirmed by Hutchinson.

Explain how these three points offered by the DN can be wrong, when, in each case, they are confirmed by an unrelated source.

You will agree, that in the academic world preference is always to find confirmation from an outside/unrelated source?
(I admit, the sources are less than scholarly - but we must work with what we have)
So lets try to apply that same reasoning to this small problem.

It was not ONE couple - it was TWO, Jon. You ask me to look away from the context, but context is everything, and I will not do that.
When you look at the context in this case, you will see that the two couples were not around at the same time, and you will note that when you place Hutchinson up at the court, looking at what you claim was Kelly and Astrakhan man entering the self same court, Hutchinson himself places himself at the corner of Commercial Street and Dorset Street, a good thirty or forty yards away! And to boot, he says that the couple stayed for three minutes outside the court, at the corner leading into it, chatting away. Lewis mentions no such thing at all.

This is the context. I will not trade it for a corroboration that was never there.

Take a look at how the loiterer and Hutchinson "corroborate" each other. And still, it would seem they were different people. More and more of the posters out here are beginning to realize this, thankfully. And the reason for this, Jon, is that they weigh the context in, the timings, the evidence, the total lack of any material relating to any contemporary person making the so called connection.

We´ve been taken to the cleaners by just about every writer on the subject, and the corroboration has gained the status of truth and fact. It´s time that is dispelled.

All the best,
Fisherman