When was the estimation of when Mary took her last meal of fish and potatoes?

[John G]

I can't help but think that Sarah Lewis' evidence is undermined by her reference to the mysterious black bag man. I mean, on the face of it we have a highly suspicious individual, equipped with the archetypal black bag, who attempted to entice Lewis or her friend into a narrow passageway. And then, incredibly two days later she sees the same man again, still equipped with the black bag, outside the Britannia; and this sighting occurred within, say, seconds of her turning into Miller's Court, where she observes another mysterious individual looking up the Court. And of course, she also hears someone scream "oh murder!"at around 4:00am.

Something just doesn't feel right about this, particularly when you consider that she didn't live in the locality but was visiting the mysterious Keylors. Frankly her evidence seems a little too good to be true.

[Ben]

“Care to describe to me what this "relative comfort" was Ben, seeing as you are so well informed.”

Of Sarah Lewis’s domestic set-up on Great Pearl Street I know little, Jon, but we might assume it was a cut above a cold, wet, small-hours walk to a tiny hovel with only a chair to sleep on. We might further assume that the “words” she exchanged with her husband that night were frosty enough to warrant the seeking out of this inferior bedtime option. I’m simply wondering what prompted “Mrs. Kennedy” to embark on a similar mission to the very same place at the same time.

“By "experience" you mean they both passed a man at the Britannia, but at difference times.”

No, by “experience” I mean both women encountering the man on Bethnal Green Road on Wednesday, both leaving their separate homes in the early hours of the 9th, both encountering – separately this time – the same man from Wednesday near Ringers’, both entering #2 Miller’s Court, both sleeping fitfully and both being roused from their sleep by a cry of “murder” a little later on.

But mysteriously, neither woman mentioned the other when describing that early morning’s sequence of events.

“The court only wants to hear what she saw and what she heard. If the court chooses to know what others saw & heard they will be called to testify.”

But Lewis did mention a companion, whether the court wanted to hear it or not. She informed them that she was with “another female” at the time of her encounter with the Bethnal Green Botherer, and she didn’t exactly hold back on using “us” and “we” when describing their experience, as one would logically expect. On what grounds , then, do you insist that she would have omitted any reference to the fact that this same “other female” was with her in the room when the cry of “murder” was heard?

“One particular paper which by pure coincidence just happens to confirm Hutchinson's story, and does not contradict anything written anywhere.”

It doesn’t confirm any aspect of Hutchinson’s story, and it contradicts all other press sources and the original police statement signed by Lewis. Yes, I realise that “Press coverage of inquest testimony is viewed as historical record”, but when a single, solitary instance of press coverage gets a detail hopelessly and provably wrong, wisdom lies in treating it as a minor, inconsequential blot on the historical record – which everyone but you seems capable of doing.

Don’t pretend you have the energy to go through all that Daily News nonsense again, because I know you haven’t.

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

I can't help but think that Sarah Lewis' evidence is undermined by her reference to the mysterious black bag man. I mean, on the face of it we have a highly suspicious individual, equipped with the archetypal black bag, who attempted to entice Lewis or her friend into a narrow passageway. And then, incredibly two days later she sees the same man again, still equipped with the black bag, outside the Britannia; and this sighting occurred within, say, seconds of her turning into Miller's Court, where she observes another mysterious individual looking up the Court. And of course, she also hears someone scream "oh murder!"at around 4:00am.

Something just doesn't feel right about this, particularly when you consider that she didn't live in the locality but was visiting the mysterious Keylors. Frankly her evidence seems a little too good to be true.

Hi JohnG
couldn't disagree more. Sarah lewis is one of the more credible witnesses IMHO.

She had every reason to be where she was.
her sighting of the waiting man is corroborated by hutch himself
Her hearing of the scream is corroborated by another witness.
(these two things alone should convince one of her credibility)
she never went blabbing to the press.
she appeared at the inquest.
she gave a police report.
her credibility was never questioned by anyone at the time.

so what re the black bag? Mortimer saw Goldstein with a black bag and numerous credible witnesses describe people with suspicious (knife size)bags/packages.

And to tell you the truth, the bethnel green man would be in my opinion a very credible suspect. if I didn't think MK was already dead or passed out, I could see this man being the ripper, who she ran into later that night.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
couldn't disagree more. Sarah lewis is one of the more credible witnesses IMHO.

She had every reason to be where she was.
her sighting of the waiting man is corroborated by hutch himself
Her hearing of the scream is corroborated by another witness.
(these two things alone should convince one of her credibility)
she never went blabbing to the press.
she appeared at the inquest.
she gave a police report.
her credibility was never questioned by anyone at the time.

so what re the black bag? Mortimer saw Goldstein with a black bag and numerous credible witnesses describe people with suspicious (knife size)bags/packages.

And to tell you the truth, the bethnel green man would be in my opinion a very credible suspect. if I didn't think MK was already dead or passed out, I could see this man being the ripper, who she ran into later that night.

Hallo Abby,

Perhaps I'm just getting cynical! I agree with you about Bethnel Green man- if Sarah Lewis was reliable then he seems a very credible suspect. However, it just appears incredibly coincidental to me that she would accidentally encounter a very suspicious individual, that she'd previously encountered two days earlier in a completely different district, just prior to entering Miller's Court. And the highly suspicious nature of this character doesn't just revolve around the black bag: according to Lewis' account he was clearly harassing Lewis and her friend, and even attempted to entice one of them into a narrow passageway. I mean, if you were going to invent a suspect it's difficult to see how you could make him seem more suspicious than Bethnel Green Man- well, apart from Astrachan Man, of course, not that he was necessarily invented!

Regarding her reasons for being there. She was, of course, visiting the Keylers, after an argument with her husband. However, I believe they've never been positively identified and I don't know whether the police confirmed this account.

Of course, her account is partially supported by Hutchinson, but his evidence is clearly open to question.

Based on the Austin murder, I would have considered a local conspiracy, however, she was quoted in one newspaper as saying that the "Oh murder" scream came from the direction of McCarthy's shop, so if it was a conspiracy she was probably going way off script!

[Ben]

Hi John,

I'm with Abby here.

The fact that Sarah Lewis was one of the few witnesses to accede to the police request not to blab to the press speaks strongly in her favour, in my view. We know next to nothing about her character, although one newspaper described her as a "doleful little body" who gave every impression of being badly affected by the events at Miller's Court. My suspicion is that the significance of her encounter with Wednesday's Bethnal Green man may have became enlarged in her mind following the Miller's Court murder, and she might have convinced herself (wrongly) that the man outside Ringers was the same person who spooked her on the Wednesday. The Bethnal Green Botherer is not a strong "ripper" candidate, in my view, but rather an ordinary punter in search of nooky, who picked a jolly silly time and place. It is difficult to envisage the real ripper approaching two women with a view to murdering one of them in a nearby alleyway, allowing the other to run off and fetch the nearest constable or passer-by.

As you'll notice from the following poll, conducted a few years ago, support for the "lying Lewis" theory is very low.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5705

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Ah! The 'Lying Lewis' poll! I'd quite forgotten about that Ben

Lying Lewis was as popular as it wasn't because, of course, there is in reality no argument to sustain to that effect. Silly really - shows what happens to rational debate when the ends justify the means.

While we're here, did you read Chris Scott's article on Lewis in Ripperologist? There was a lot of information there about Lewis which came directly from her family.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

Lying Lewis was as popular as it wasn't because, of course, there is in reality no argument to sustain to that effect.

You need to be able to tell the difference between argument, evidence and proof before you comment, Sally. There are many arguments for Lewis having been less than truthful.
Ask anybody, and you will see - make a poll about it, even!

Silly really - shows what happens to rational debate when the ends justify the means.

I don´t understand - if the ends do justify the means, then surely any debate would be helped by it?

[John G]

Hi John,

I'm with Abby here.

The fact that Sarah Lewis was one of the few witnesses to accede to the police request not to blab to the press speaks strongly in her favour, in my view. We know next to nothing about her character, although one newspaper described her as a "doleful little body" who gave every impression of being badly affected by the events at Miller's Court. My suspicion is that the significance of her encounter with Wednesday's Bethnal Green man may have became enlarged in her mind following the Miller's Court murder, and she might have convinced herself (wrongly) that the man outside Ringers was the same person who spooked her on the Wednesday. The Bethnal Green Botherer is not a strong "ripper" candidate, in my view, but rather an ordinary punter in search of nooky, who picked a jolly silly time and place. It is difficult to envisage the real ripper approaching two women with a view to murdering one of them in a nearby alleyway, allowing the other to run off and fetch the nearest constable or passer-by.

As you'll notice from the following poll, conducted a few years ago, support for the "lying Lewis" theory is very low.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5705

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Ah yes, polls. I think the last poll I saw on Casebook James Maybrick was voted the most popular suspect! Yes, I had considered that Lewis may have been wrong about the second Ringers ID of Black Bag man, because frankly, the idea that Lewis would encounter the same suspicious character that she encountered in a different district 2 days earlier, and just prior to encountering another suspicious character, maybe Hutchinson or maybe not, is completely far-fetched.

Of course, a local conspiracy, such appeared to have occurred in respect he Austin case, might explain why she didn't go the press. However, if that is the case I somehow doubt that she would have claimed to hear the scream of "oh murder" from the direction of McCarthy's shop!

[Wickerman]

Of Sarah Lewis’s domestic set-up on Great Pearl Street I know little, Jon, but we might assume it was a cut above a cold, wet, small-hours walk to a tiny hovel with only a chair to sleep on. We might further assume that the “words” she exchanged with her husband that night were frosty enough to warrant the seeking out of this inferior bedtime option. I’m simply wondering what prompted “Mrs. Kennedy” to embark on a similar mission to the very same place at the same time.

Lacking a more detailed explanation as to why Lewis left home that night we can only make assumptions. However, as she did not claim to be related to the Keylors then Lewis may have been aware that Mrs Kennedy regularly visited her parents in Millers Court about that hour. Kennedy may have even been living there temporarily with or without her hubby.
As they appeared to spend time together as recently as Wednesday, they may have spent most evening in each others company, these are details we can only guess at.

One tell-tale clue as to the real reason they were both out is provided by Kennedy, in referring to the Wednesday night "experience", she claims the stranger they met "refused to stand them a drink".
Why two married/committed? women would be out at that hour attempting to obtain drinks from a stranger may not seem so odd if we consider them both being part time prostitutes.

But mysteriously, neither woman mentioned the other when describing that early morning’s sequence of events.

Outside the Britannia?, they were not there together, but approx. a half hour apart.

But Lewis did mention a companion, whether the court wanted to hear it or not.

We all know the story of Diemschitz running the length of Fairclough St. in search of a policeman, he was accompanied by Kozebrodski, the two men ran together, yet Diemschitz own testimony is given in the singular. He makes no mention of being accompanied by anyone.
This is natural, he was asked what he did, so he replied by telling them what he did, not we but he.

Kozebrodski, although talking to the press made the same singular claim.
"I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one."
Interestingly, he then includes another person by claiming to go up to Commercial Rd. "with Eagle".
So we know examples do exist where an "I" was really a "we", therefore we can't question the statement of a witness just because they make no mention of a companion.
It does not mean the companion was not present.

It doesn’t confirm any aspect of Hutchinson’s story, and it contradicts all other press sources and the original police statement signed by Lewis. Yes, I realise that “Press coverage of inquest testimony is viewed as historical record”, but when a single, solitary instance of press coverage gets a detail hopelessly and provably wrong, wisdom lies in treating it as a minor, inconsequential blot on the historical record – which everyone but you seems capable of doing.

Yet that detail has never been proven wrong. You just don't like it, and as with other details that you don't like - you dismiss them.
Your habit of dismissing what you don't like does not constitute proof of anything.
The fact Hutchinson makes exactly the same claim to the police is a good indication that the Daily News was accurate in that particular detail.

If you choose to take aim at "a single solitary" instance, you might start with your Star and their "single solitary" claim that Hutchinson was discredited.
Dismiss that, and we may be making some headway.

Don’t pretend you have the energy to go through all that Daily News nonsense again, because I know you haven’t.

Isn't it time you had a refresher course?

[John G]

Sally:

Lying Lewis was as popular as it wasn't because, of course, there is in reality no argument to sustain to that effect.

You need to be able to tell the difference between argument, evidence and proof before you comment, Sally. There are many arguments for Lewis having been less than truthful.
Ask anybody, and you will see - make a poll about it, even!

Silly really - shows what happens to rational debate when the ends justify the means.

I don´t understand - if the ends do justify the means, then surely any debate would be helped by it?

I completely agree Fish. I think we shouldn't seek to stifle debate simply because it doesn't accord with our own pet theories. Anyway, there are clearly so many unreliable witnesses throughout this saga that I think it unwise to just accept evidence at face value, even in circumstances where the witness is not called George Hutchinson!

[Ben]

“However, as she did not claim to be related to the Keylors then Lewis may have been aware that Mrs Kennedy regularly visited her parents in Millers Court about that hour”

"That hour" being 3.00 in the morning – a totally normal time to visit one’s parents on a regular basis!

Presumably they planned on dusting off the family album at 4.00.

Sarah Lewis gave not the slightest indication that her departure from Great Pearl Street was planned to coincide with her “sister’s” regular visit to her parents in the wee hours. She left at that time because, as she stated on oath, she had exchanged “words” with her husband. This actually makes sense as a plausible motivation for leaving the marital home in the middle of night and heading, in the cold November rain, for Miller’s Court; unlike your bafflingly implausible suggestion that Lewis chose to endure such an extreme of discomfort because she wanted to “spend an evening” with her sister. It was 2:30am in the morning – what could be a dafter time to “spend an evening” with a sister, or a dafter venue for that matter? A tiny room, the same size as Kelly’s, and with a sleeping couple on the only bed?

“One tell-tale clue as to the real reason they were both out is provided by Kennedy, in referring to the Wednesday night "experience", she claims the stranger they met "refused to stand them a drink".”

That’s not a "tell-tale clue" to anything other than the bogus nature of Kennedy’s claims, but here you are, claiming that her discredited press tattle is more valuable and trustworthy that Lewis’s police statement and inquest evidence. Sarah Lewis was the only trusted source for the Wednesday night encounter, and her evidence contains no evidence that she was soliciting.

“We all know the story of Diemschitz running the length of Fairclough St. in search of a policeman, he was accompanied by Kozebrodski, the two men ran together, yet Diemschitz own testimony is given in the singular. He makes no mention of being accompanied by anyone.
This is natural, he was asked what he did, so he replied by telling them what he did, not we but he.”

This is horribly irrelevant, because we know that Sarah Lewis did make reference to being accompanied by another person when she actually was. She stated, entirely without prompting, that she was in the company of “another female” when accosted by Mr. Bethnal Green Road. She used the words “we” and “us” to describe what happened to them in the context of their experience with this man. So forget the irrelevant examples. We know that Sarah Lewis mentioned being in company when she actually was in company (as most sane people do), so on what possible basis do you assert that she would warp into “weirdly pretending to be alone when she actually had company” mode when the same “female” was awake and in the same room when the “murder” cry was heard?

“Yet that detail has never been proven wrong. You just don't like it, and as with other details that you don't like - you dismiss them.”

It has been utterly proven wrong – time and time again, and it is only you who champions it as accurate. Nothing in Hutchinson's statement even remotely correlates with the Daily News’s proven error on the subject of Lewis’s “couple”.

“If you choose to take aim at "a single solitary" instance, you might start with your Star and their "single solitary" claim that Hutchinson was discredited.”

It wasn’t solitary at all. It corresponded perfectly with both the Echo’s proven communication with the police and the ultimate treatment accorded to Hutchinson, as reflected in the reports, interviews and memoirs of the police seniority involved with case.

“Isn't it time you had a refresher course?”

You pick these fights in the middle of nowhere, resulting in almost verbatim regurgitation of previous debates, and I always finish them. If you think this thread’s going to be any different, I’m afraid you’re the one in need of a “refresher course”.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

While we're here, did you read Chris Scott's article on Lewis in Ripperologist? There was a lot of information there about Lewis which came directly from her family.

Indeed I did, Sally, although it was a while ago and I may be in need of a re-read, or even a "refresher course".

From what I recall there was a lot of interesting stuff there, albeit very little that screamed Lying Prostitute.

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

What I find interesting about the Kelly case is how many witnesses gave questionable evidence. Thus, apart from George Hutchinson, we have Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis. And Mary Ann Cox's evidence isn't without problems: she states that Kelly was so drunk she was barely able to walk, and her companion, Blotchy, was carrying a quart of ale. This all suggests that they'd been drinking for some time, however, despite extensive inquiries the police were unable to find a single pub were anyone remembered serving Kelly or her Blotchy friend.

As I've noted, Sarah Lewis' claim to have re-encountered the mysterious suspect, described by Chris Scott as "the sinister man with the shiny black bag", just before entering Dorset Street, where she immediately encounters another suspicious looking character, seems almost ludicrous.

And she did amend an important part of her evidence: she told the police that she arrived at Miller's Court between 2:00am and 3:00am. However, at the inquest she said the time was 2:30, which more closely corresponds with Hutchinson's evidence- he claimed to have left by 2:45am.

I accept the police didn't doubt her evidence, however, initially at least, they also believed George Hutchinson. And there only reason for doubting Maxwell seems to have been the lateness of the sighting.

Of course, none of this remotely proves that Lewis lied, however, I consider it important to keep an open mind. It's, not impossible that she was an attention seeker, and that is clearly something the police considered, and dismissed, in respect of Caroline Maxwell.

A local conspiracy is also a possibility, particularly in light of the later Austin case (this has also been suggested on the basis that Kelly has never been identified).However, it's clearly important to remain objective. In the Austin case it's quite obvious that numerous witnesses lied, or were involved in a cover-up, as Inspector Divall's Report clearly demonstrates: the inquest virtually degenerated into complete farce. Whereas evidence of a conspiracy in the Kelly case is circumstantial at best.

[Abby Normal]

What I find interesting about the Kelly case is how many witnesses gave questionable evidence. Thus, apart from George Hutchinson, we have Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis. And Mary Ann Cox's evidence isn't without problems: she states that Kelly was so drunk she was barely able to walk, and her companion, Blotchy, was carrying a quart of ale. This all suggests that they'd been drinking for some time, however, despite extensive inquiries the police were unable to find a single pub were anyone remembered serving Kelly or her Blotchy friend.

As I've noted, Sarah Lewis' claim to have re-encountered the mysterious suspect, described by Chris Scott as "the sinister man with the shiny black bag", just before entering Dorset Street, where she immediately encounters another suspicious looking character, seems almost ludicrous.

And she did amend an important part of her evidence: she told the police that she arrived at Miller's Court between 2:00am and 3:00am. However, at the inquest she said the time was 2:30, which more closely corresponds with Hutchinson's evidence- he claimed to have left by 2:45am.

I accept the police didn't doubt her evidence, however, initially at least, they also believed George Hutchinson. And there only reason for doubting Maxwell seems to have been the lateness of the sighting.

Of course, none of this remotely proves that Lewis lied, however, I consider it important to keep an open mind. It's, not impossible that she was an attention seeker, and that is clearly something the police considered, and dismissed, in respect of Caroline Maxwell.

A local conspiracy is also a possibility, particularly in light of the later Austin case (this has also been suggested on the basis that Kelly has never been identified).However, it's clearly important to remain objective. In the Austin case it's quite obvious that numerous witnesses lied, or were involved in a cover-up, as Inspector Divall's Report clearly demonstrates: the inquest virtually degenerated into complete farce. Whereas evidence of a conspiracy in the Kelly case is circumstantial at best.

Hi JohnG
Good post.
And I will concede that lewis seeing the Bethnel green man twice does seem unlikely. However, since she was frightened by him once that would make him stick out in her mind-giving more reason why she would even recognize him again. And I think you need to look at all witnesses on a case by case basis, look at everything, and make an decision on truthfulness-if not, then the whole thing is a house of cards and nothing can be made sense of.

I find her credible, for all the resons I mentioned before.

And since shes credible IMHO-I believe her whole story, including BG man- just has a ring of truth to it for me.

It seems that this guy is a slightly eccentric punter, or even the ripper, and that if hes in the habit of solicitating women/prostitutes then no wonder he is out and about on the streets at night.

To me The Bethnel Green man seems to fit the general description and personality of the ripper. Slightly above the destitutes in class. manner of speech-eccentric yet "gentle speech" ,charming-disarming, perhaps half joking.

"you would say anything but your prayers"-Marshalls man
"something the ladies don't like"-BG man
"will you?" Longs man
Eddowes hand on chest of suspect-Lawende
Asking to treat them-BG man
Walking around with victim, buying them things-strides man

Heck, he even jibes with A-man somewhat (not that I believe Hutch for a second on that score).

Like I said if MK wasn't already dead or passed out, I could definitely see her running into him (he was close that night).

And of course, I think the ripper had must have had some kind of anatomical/medical/surgical background-which also jibes with BG man somewhat.

I find him a VERY intriguing character.

(and yes-one of the few things that me and BEN definitely disagree on).LOL.

[Wickerman]

"That hour" being 3.00 in the morning – a totally normal time to visit one’s parents on a regular basis!

If you are out most nights, clientele might dry up around that time.
That is the time Cox came back too, her night was also over about 3:00.

Sarah Lewis gave not the slightest indication that her departure from Great Pearl Street was planned to coincide with her “sister’s” regular visit to her parents in the wee hours.

There was no cause for her to mention the subject.

She left at that time because, as she stated on oath, she had exchanged “words” with her husband.

Wow, that must have stuck in your throat to admit to that.

Your least favourite newspapers, the Daily News & Morning Advertiser are the only two London papers which recorded that detail from the inquest.
So now you choose to quote from the very sources you normally ridicule, how two-faced that appears to be.
More likely you just goofed, eh?

Sarah L. only mentioned that detail in her police statement, and that was not taken under oath.

This actually makes sense as a plausible motivation for leaving the marital home in the middle of night and heading, in the cold November rain, for Miller’s Court;...

But she doesn't say that though.
What Lewis tells the court is why she went to the Keylors, rather than going home. Not that she left home to go to the Keylors.
Do you see a difference?

Possibly, the reason they had 'words' had something to do with her being out too often for too long.

She stated, entirely without prompting, that she was in the company of “another female” when accosted by Mr. Bethnal Green Road. She used the words “we” and “us” to describe what happened to them in the context of their experience with this man.

You are losing track of your previous point.
If you remember, you tried to ridicule the fact that Lewis had not said "my sister heard it too", implying that she would have said this if her sister was present.
A witness does not tell the court what someone else saw or heard.
The above quote does not change that fact.

It has been utterly proven wrong – time and time again, and it is only you who champions it as accurate. Nothing in Hutchinson's statement even remotely correlates with the Daily News’s proven error on the subject of Lewis’s “couple”.

What a load of hogwash. Do you actually understand what 'proof' is?
Oh yes, silly me, this is Ben who decides for himself what 'proven' means.
Yes, I remember that post.

It wasn’t solitary at all. It corresponded perfectly with both the Echo’s proven communication with the police and the ultimate treatment accorded to Hutchinson, as reflected in the reports, interviews and memoirs of the police seniority involved with case.

Remind me, which other newspaper said Hutchinson was discredited?

You pick these fights in the middle of nowhere, resulting in almost verbatim regurgitation of previous debates, and I always finish them. If you think this thread’s going to be any different, I’m afraid you’re the one in need of a “refresher course”.

If I'm not mistaken, rather than "finish" anything, you have a habit of running away when the pressure gets too much, and for weeks at a time.

While you've been gone this time Ben, the subject of Hutchinson has rarely surfaced. And when it did it was brief, and there was no butting-of-heads. The exchanges were quite amiable.

Here's a suggestion - if YOU do not want to talk about Hutchinson & related topics, then DON'T talk about Hutchinson!