Help On Some Details

[Wickerman]

I see Wickermans idea. A real issue I have with it though is how can you tell someone is on the drink if you don't see them walk or talk? So if the women was in the drink as it were Lewis must have seen her walking. That creates a problem as Hutchinson says Aman and Kelly stood at the passage for three minutes. If thats the case then Lewis couple couldn't be Kelly and Aman. How else can you tell if someone is in the drink if you see them from a distance fleetingly.

Ok, but Dorset street was about 25 ft wide (Ordnance Survey Map), and Hutch could hear their conversation from at least that distance.
Christer has argued the distance could have been considerably further.

So, as we don't know how far behind this couple Lewis was walking, at least we can accept 25ft as a minimum, or a little further?
Lewis could have heard Kelly talking as she approached, then the couple walk up the court. They are at least 25ft+ ahead of Lewis, but Lewis's attention is not on this couple but the man across the street. Lewis pauses at the passage just long enough to take a look at the man, then enters the passage herself.
Lewis see's no-one in the court as she walks down the passage. She was far enough behind in both distance & time that she just missed seeing them enter room 13.

This is not so much a case of proving something happened, we only need to demonstrate it could have. That it wasn't impossible.

[Wickerman]

Hi wick
But how could this couple be aman and mary? Sarah lewis arrived at the court/keylers 2:30 ish and hutch saw aman and mary go into the court at 2:15ish.

Hi Abby.
In some accounts Lewis is said to have got the time from Spitalfields clock, but was it as she passed, or was it because she heard it strike?

She does say she was "at the Keyler's at 2:30". In her inquest testimony she says:
" I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning".

That suggests to me that she heard the clock strike 2:30 while she was inside the Keylers. So, she does not say what time she arrived.
Whether she had been inside the Keyler's 5, 10 or 15 minutes, we do not know.
It is reasonable to assume Hutch was following the couple down Dorset St. between 2:10-2:15, roughly.
We just cannot place Lewis in Dorset St. at a specific time. So it wouldn't be true to say Lewis missed the couple altogether.

That she was able to hear the Spitalfields clock from inside the Keyler's is confirmed by a later remark: " I heard the clock strike half past three...", while she was inside the Keyler's.

Plus hutch watched them go into the court and marys room at which point he took up his vigil...then lewis arrives later and sees hutch there as she enters the court.

I don't see the need to place Lewis so far behind this couple, she only needs to notice this couple standing outside the court passage, and notice Hutch standing opposite, as she approached.
Lewis just did not think he was watching the couple, but waiting for someone else. So it seems to me Lewis was pretty close.

[Wickerman]

You'd think that if he was trying to insert himself into her account, he might have mentioned seeing her go ino the court, rather than deny seeing her.

He didn't deny seeing her in his police statement.
In his press statement he was talking about seeing men

"When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

I don't think he was saying he was alone in the street, he was saying he saw no-one else who could be a suspect, in other words, no men.
No-one seriously suspected a women of these horrible murders, but unfortunates were coming and going all hours of the night.

[DJA]

Hi Abby.
In some accounts Lewis is said to have got the time from Spitalfields clock, but was it as she passed, or was it because she heard it strike?

She does say she was "at the Keyler's at 2:30". In her inquest testimony she says:
" I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning".

That suggests to me that she heard the clock strike 2:30 while she was inside the Keylers. So, she does not say what time she arrived.
Whether she had been inside the Keyler's 5, 10 or 15 minutes, we do not know.
It is reasonable to assume Hutch was following the couple down Dorset St. between 2:10-2:15, roughly.
We just cannot place Lewis in Dorset St. at a specific time. So it wouldn't be true to say Lewis missed the couple altogether.

That she was able to hear the Spitalfields clock from inside the Keyler's is confirmed by a later remark: " I heard the clock strike half past three...", while she was inside the Keyler's.




I don't see the need to place Lewis so far behind this couple, she only needs to notice this couple standing outside the court passage, and notice Hutch standing opposite, as she approached.
Lewis just did not think he was watching the couple, but waiting for someone else. So it seems to me Lewis was pretty close.

Lewis walked from Great Pearl Street,down Commercial Street,with the Christ Church steeple clock tower to her left.

Pretty damn sure that is where she got the time from.

Ironically she was residing next door to where Joseph Barnett lived as a child in 1871.

[AuroraSarintacos]

Hutchinson's story doesn't sit well with me - it sounds fabricated.

Here's an unfinished illustration of what was claimed to have been witnessed by Hutchinson.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok,

This is not so much a case of proving something happened, we only need to demonstrate it could have. That it wasn't impossible.

The police in 1888 would have looked at all aspects of the witness testimony including Hutchinson. As there is nothing specific to tell us who they believed and who they didn't, researchers like it or not have to accept the witness testimony as given on oath, and not what is contained in the newspaper reports, which are unsafe, and as i have said may times before too much importance has been placed by researchers in these newspaper reports.

For days now researchers on here have been arguing with each other on the various aspects of the testimony, and more so with what was said in the newspaper reports. I have to ask where is this going and what are researchers looking to achieve ?

If a researcher has a specific theory/opinion, that's fine, but as we see with Fish and Charles Cross they are not going to give it up, and so all the constant bickering, and arguing over these opinions/theories is futile, its a pity some have nothing better to do with their time than sit here day after day arguing over the same issues time and time again.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

He didn't deny seeing her in his police statement.
In his press statement he was talking about seeing men

"When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

I don't think he was saying he was alone in the street, he was saying he saw no-one else who could be a suspect, in other words, no men.
No-one seriously suspected a women of these horrible murders, but unfortunates were coming and going all hours of the night.

Hi Wick, I don't think they suspected a Policeman on duty either but Hutch mentions one.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Ok, but Dorset street was about 25 ft wide (Ordnance Survey Map), and Hutch could hear their conversation from at least that distance.
Christer has argued the distance could have been considerably further.

So, as we don't know how far behind this couple Lewis was walking, at least we can accept 25ft as a minimum, or a little further?
Lewis could have heard Kelly talking as she approached, then the couple walk up the court. They are at least 25ft+ ahead of Lewis, but Lewis's attention is not on this couple but the man across the street. Lewis pauses at the passage just long enough to take a look at the man, then enters the passage herself.
Lewis see's no-one in the court as she walks down the passage. She was far enough behind in both distance & time that she just missed seeing them enter room 13.

This is not so much a case of proving something happened, we only need to demonstrate it could have. That it wasn't impossible.

Wick can i ask you what you believe regarding Sarah and the couple. Correct me if i am wrong but i assumed you meant when Sarah said further on, you meant further on along the passageway as she entered. If you mean she observed them entering the said passage as she approached down Dorset St wouldn't she say, in her inquest testimony instead of - Another young man with a woman passed along [jtr source book p414], or further on [inquest testimony , this site], if she was coming down Dorset St - across the street, or opposite etc [after she described seeing wideawake man], a couple entered the passageway.

[Sunny Delight]

Why?
He followed her around the night of her murder, waited outside her place for 45 minutes in the middle of the night.

Then apparently says he thinks he sees the man again, stays up late looking for the man.goes with the police. Talks to the press.

Seems he was obsessed with kelly and this man she was with before during and after everything.

And another question. Didnt hutch tell the press he was up late looking for the man and that he told a policeman on the street about it before he decided to come forward to the station and tell his story?
If hes reluctant before he comes forward, why alll this? Again dosnt sound reluctant at all to me.

It seems to me you don't believe Hutchinson for a second but because of that you view everything he did with suspicion. Everyone was astonished the Inquest lasted one day. When Hutchinson showed up at the Police station at 6pm would he have been aware the inquest had been closed- I doubt it very much. We will never be able to prove either way if he stood outside the inquest- I would say again that would be very unlikely. It all becomes so elaborate as to become untenable in my opinion. I admit following Kelly and the man was creepy. For all we know Hutchinson could have been the biggest slimeball on the east end. That doesn't mean you can't be honest.


Yes Hutchinson told a Policeman on the Sunday. The policeman was on point duty as far as I remember. Something tells me Hutchinson was looking to get it off his chest. It was playing on his mind all weekend. Obviously telling the Policeman did nit expunge the guilt he felt about not saying something. He could have been in turmoil the whole weekend for all we know. If you suspect he may have even been guilty of the crime itself then surely Hutchinson thought the same himself. After all he was human just like me and you. I am sure he could see just how his actions could be misconstrued.

[Wickerman]

Lewis walked from Great Pearl Street,down Commercial Street,with the Christ Church steeple clock tower to her left.

Pretty damn sure that is where she got the time from.

What does she say that makes you so sure?

[Wickerman]

The police in 1888 would have looked at all aspects of the witness testimony including Hutchinson. As there is nothing specific to tell us who they believed and who they didn't, researchers like it or not have to accept the witness testimony as given on oath, and not what is contained in the newspaper reports, which are unsafe, and as i have said may times before too much importance has been placed by researchers in these newspaper reports.

Did McCarthy admit under oath to forcing his own door?

Inquest coverage in the press has stood the test of criticism. No-one to date has ever found a statement to be incorrect.

Why do we not hear these criticisms when debating the Nichols, Chapman & Stride cases?

[Wickerman]

Wick can i ask you what you believe regarding Sarah and the couple. Correct me if i am wrong but i assumed you meant when Sarah said further on, you meant further on along the passageway as she entered.

No Darryl, I meant Lewis was walking along Dorset street and she noticed "further on" ahead of her, on the same side, was this couple, and she saw them turn into Millers Court.
She only mentioned this loiterer as she reached the passage herself. By that time this couple had gone up the passage out of sight.

I am not concerned about the "3 minutes" Hutch said the couple stopped for. The words exchanged between Kelly & Astrachan don't take three minutes to say, and Hutch didn't have a watch as the time he gave was by reference to the Whitechapel Church clock.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Abberline's beliefs had nothing to do with who appeared or did not appear at an inquest.

c.d.

I dont know why this continually needs explaining, its self evident for god sakes. The fact that Israel Schwartz's statement is absent in all forms at the Inquest into Liz Strides death means IT WASNT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF HOW SHE DIED.

The fact that he says a woman assaulted minutes before her throat is cut would surely be pertinent, if it was believed. Evidently....IT WAS NOT. Which would make....as I first stated, zero for 2 with Hutchinson and Schwartz.

Can we stop putting our hands over our eyes now?

[Michael W Richards]

He said that he knew her very well, had known her for years and had been in her company a number of times. He also said that he'd sometimes given her a few shillings - shillings! - in the past. If he was telling the truth than it appears that, if they weren't "friends" per se, they were more than mere passing acquaintances.

Which would make a four day delay in coming forward with possibly relevant information about a possible suspect despicable.

[c.d.]

I dont know why this continually needs explaining, its self evident for god sakes. The fact that Israel Schwartz's statement is absent in all forms at the Inquest into Liz Strides death means IT WASNT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF HOW SHE DIED.

The fact that he says a woman assaulted minutes before her throat is cut would surely be pertinent, if it was believed. Evidently....IT WAS NOT. Which would make....as I first stated, zero for 2 with Hutchinson and Schwartz.

Can we stop putting our hands over our eyes now?

Hello Michael,

I think it is quite unfair of you not to share your evidence with the rest of us seeing as how you know for a FACT that this was the case.

c.d.