Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

lewis never said she saw kelly with the bethnal green botherer. she said she saw him with a woman and besides she didnt even know mary kelly. lewis statement has no reason to be disbeleived, she is actually one of the witnesses who dosnt have any discrepencies.

if she wanted to be fanciful or wanted fifteen minutes of fame she could have come up with something much more...like saying she saw the bgb with kelly or it was him lurking outside her house.

I can see the allure in thinking like this. But we cannot in retrospect decide for the witnesses what they would have said if they wanted a slice of the case. In essence, if she lied, we can see that she did make front page news regardless of how she worded herself.

[Fisherman]

lewis man looked just like blotchy? dont think so fish, nothing like him

Dark clothes, not very tall, wideawake or felt hat? I disagree, Abby, they seem to match quite well.

[harry]

The main difference ,as I see it,between Hutchinson and Richardson,is the element of truth.Hutchinson offers a situation of a person that cannot be identified or found,while Richardson offers a situation of a body being able to be seen if it was present.Of the two,only Richardson's account can be tested and found to be truthfull.

[Curious Cat]

All we can say is that Lewis claims she saw a man standing outside the lodging house looking suspicious, it doesn't follow that it must have been Hutchinson

It's been a thought of mine recently that Hutchinson may have read the account of Mrs Kennedy in the paper over the weekend and saw the time of 3am given. Anticipating being identified at the inquest, he comes forward after the inquest has closed and gives his own account. He gives 3am as his leaving time...the same time given by Mrs Kennedy...but also claims to have waited in Dorset Street for 45 minutes before leaving. Sarah Lewis's inquest evidence is then published after Hutchinson made his statement and it only matches in regard to Hutchinson's position in Dorset Street and the time he was there. Everything else is separate information. Sarah Lewis doesn't identify Hutchinson as the man she saw. Hutchinson identifies himself as the man Sarah Lewis saw. Hutchinson is aware there is a least one other person around at the relevant time who could potentially identify him.

There are no witnesses to John Richardson being at/near the spot where Annie Chapman was found whereas there would be witnesses to his arrival at work at the market, which he went to immediately after leaving 29 Hanbury Street. He also gives his evidence before a time of death is given.

[Observer]

lewis and hutch corroborate each other. she saw a man lurking outside kellys place as if waiting for someone to come out at the same time hutch said thats where and what he was doing.

All we can say is that Lewis claims she saw a man standing outside the lodging house looking suspicious, it doesn't follow that it must have been Hutchinson

[Observer]

lewis never said she saw kelly with the bethnal green botherer. she said she saw him with a woman and besides she didnt even know mary kelly. lewis statement has no reason to be disbeleived, she is actually one of the witnesses who dosnt have any discrepencies.

if she wanted to be fanciful or wanted fifteen minutes of fame she could have come up with something much more...like saying she saw the bgb with kelly or it was him lurking outside her house.

I'm working from memory here but didn't Kennedy aka Lewis say that she saw the BGB with two women one of whom was Kelly? She said she didn't know Kelly, if she visited the Keylers though she might have known Kelly by sight. In my opinion Lewis is very much an unreliable witness.

It's irrelevant though, we were discussing Richardson, and whether he would put himself at the scene of a murder to escape an ear bashing from his mother. The fact is his mother would have known that it was a regular "job" of his to check on the the stair well, the yard and the cellar. Would she have told the police this? In all probability yes, it would have emerged. So either way, Richardson whether he visited the yard or not, would have been questioned by the police. He had a reason to be there, it was no big deal therefore if he told a lie saying he was there, when in actual fact he was not. I doubt the police suspected he was involved in the murder for one minute.

There was no need for Hutchinson to come forward when he did. In effect, considering the unlikely story he presented to the police, I'd say he put himself into much more of a precarious situation than Richardson found himself in

[Abby Normal]

Yes we are. But I can't let Fake News go...

theres nothing fake about what i posted and i dont appreciate you saying i post fake news. apologize and retract that statement. im serious.

[Chava]

see my above post to observer. and were getting way off topic

Yes we are. But I can't let Fake News go...

[Chava]

lewis and hutch corroborate each other. she saw a man lurking outside kellys place as if waiting for someone to come out at the same time hutch said thats where and what he was doing.

No they don't. Lewis's lurking man is not necessarily Hutchinson. If Hutchinson knew about Lewis's evidence he could have come forward to say he was that man. And if he was, why didn't he mention the woman who went right past him up Miller's Court? There is no mention of Lewis in Hutchinson's statement. And Lewis comes forward before Hutchinson does. So she does not corroborate him.

[Abby Normal]

I thought you'd say that.

Actually no. Sarah Lewis did not spot Hutchinson. She saw a shortish stout man in a black wide-awake hat. She testifies at the inquest during the day of November 12th.

At 6.00 pm on November 12th, which is after the inquest, Hutchinson comes forward with his story. Hutchinson therefore might be said to corroborate Sarah Lewis. But she does not corroborate him. He could have heard about her evidence and come forward to claim he was the man she saw. But that doesn't mean he was. And he never mentions seeing her even though she walked straight past him...

see my above post to observer. and were getting way off topic

[Abby Normal]

Lewis spotted someone opposite Millers Court on the night of the Kelly murder it wasn't necessarily Hutchinson. Even if it was, Lewis would only have seen him for a split second, across a darkened street. There was no need for him to come forward, yet he did. It's also debatable whether he knew of Lewis's testimony before he volunteered himself at Commercial Street Police Station.

lewis and hutch corroborate each other. she saw a man lurking outside kellys place as if waiting for someone to come out at the same time hutch said thats where and what he was doing.

[Abby Normal]

... who said at her police interview that she could not describe a single thing about the loiterer, but then, at the inquest, she had a whole lot to say about him. And lo and behold, he seems to have looked just like the man Cox had described some time before Lewis went on stage. And although I have not checked, Cox gave her initial testimony on the 9:th, and so it may perhaps have made it into the papers too.

Is it more than me who is mischiveous enough to sense a pattern here...?

lewis man looked just like blotchy? dont think so fish, nothing like him

[Abby Normal]

I agree Chava, it seems the East End in the LVP was chockfull of fanciful witnesses !! Lewis and her top hatted bag man who tried to tice her down a back lane in Bethnal Green, and who she later saw with Kelly outside the Britannia public house. Hutchinsons Astrakhan man. Packer was full of BS, you get the idea.

lewis never said she saw kelly with the bethnal green botherer. she said she saw him with a woman and besides she didnt even know mary kelly. lewis statement has no reason to be disbeleived, she is actually one of the witnesses who dosnt have any discrepencies.

if she wanted to be fanciful or wanted fifteen minutes of fame she could have come up with something much more...like saying she saw the bgb with kelly or it was him lurking outside her house.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now we are on the right way.

We hove lost a long time discussing the possibility of Richardson missing the body, when we are not even sure that he went there at first place, let alone sat on the steps.

He could have been the thief who stole his mother, didn't he say there were always people there and his mother denied ?! Maybe he used to tell his mother that to avoid her suspicions?!

The moment he met the rabbit, and everything went awry.



The Baron

[Chava]

sarah lewis

I thought you'd say that.

Actually no. Sarah Lewis did not spot Hutchinson. She saw a shortish stout man in a black wide-awake hat. She testifies at the inquest during the day of November 12th.

At 6.00 pm on November 12th, which is after the inquest, Hutchinson comes forward with his story. Hutchinson therefore might be said to corroborate Sarah Lewis. But she does not corroborate him. He could have heard about her evidence and come forward to claim he was the man she saw. But that doesn't mean he was. And he never mentions seeing her even though she walked straight past him...