Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kennedy and Lewis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    I stretch a point Jon,that needs stretching.Not all people today believe everything written by newspapers in 1888 were true.
    Sunny's suspicions can also be taken seriously.My belief is that Lewis could not have seen the same couple that Hutchinson followed.The time difference doesn't allow it.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by harry View Post
      I stretch a point Jon,that needs stretching.Not all people today believe everything written by newspapers in 1888 were true.
      Macdonald believed what he read, otherwise he wouldn't have invited Maxwell to give testimony.
      The public believed what they read, they had no alternate source.

      Sunny's suspicions can also be taken seriously.My belief is that Lewis could not have seen the same couple that Hutchinson followed.The time difference doesn't allow it.
      We do not know what the time difference was.

      Apart from Lewis specifically saying she was AT No.2 Millers Court AT 2:30, and Hutchinson saying he met up with Kelly "about 2:00 am", and leaving the scene "at 3:00 am".
      There is nothing time-wise that we know.
      So no, you do not know what the time difference was.

      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #93
        There is the unknown factor of course. If we are aware of the distance Hutchinson had to travel to reach Crossingham's,and take into account the small amount of time Hutchinson stood watching from the Queens Head,it is possible to arrive at an aproximate time Hutchinson reached Crossingham's,and my estimate is that Hutchinson would have been there by 2.15,give or take a couple of minutes.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by harry View Post
          There is the unknown factor of course. If we are aware of the distance Hutchinson had to travel to reach Crossingham's,and take into account the small amount of time Hutchinson stood watching from the Queens Head,it is possible to arrive at an aproximate time Hutchinson reached Crossingham's,and my estimate is that Hutchinson would have been there by 2.15,give or take a couple of minutes.
          We only need to look at the sequence of events, times are irrelevant.

          Hutchinson takes up a position in Dorset St. opposite Millers Court, and watched a couple stand & talk momentarily, the female being the worse for drink, then they walk up the passage.

          Sarah Lewis walks along Dorset St., further ahead she see's a couple, the female being the worse for drink, and they pass up the court. As Lewis reached the court she noticed a man standing opposite looking up the passage as if waiting for someone.

          As we can accept there are only minutes between these two separate incidents, it is only common sense to accept Hutch & Lewis describe the same incident from different perspectives.

          There isn't any point in trying to separate them.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #95
            Times are not irrelevant Jon.I am describing two differenr sets of timing.One is the clock,the other a measure of how long it takes to cover an area of Ground.
            Kelly and the stranger meet at the latest,according to Hutchinson,five minutes after 2o'clock.After a brief exchange of words,lasting seconds,they walk a distance of about 300 yards,without stopping,untill they reach Millers Court.They stop for about 3 minutes before entering the court.I calculate it would then be no later than eighteen minutes past 2 o'clock,still 12 minutes before Sarah Lewis arrives.No way she would have seen Kelly and companion enter the court.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by harry View Post
              Times are not irrelevant Jon.I am describing two differenr sets of timing.One is the clock,the other a measure of how long it takes to cover an area of Ground.
              Kelly and the stranger meet at the latest,according to Hutchinson,five minutes after 2o'clock.After a brief exchange of words,lasting seconds,they walk a distance of about 300 yards,without stopping,untill they reach Millers Court.They stop for about 3 minutes before entering the court.I calculate it would then be no later than eighteen minutes past 2 o'clock,still 12 minutes before Sarah Lewis arrives.No way she would have seen Kelly and companion enter the court.
              There is more walking in this scenario than standing still, and no-one can say with any certainty how fast either Hutchinson or Lewis walked, or Kelly & Astrachan for that matter.

              First, the speed that Hutchinson walked was governed by the speed that Kelly & Astrachan walked, and Hutch said "they walked slowly", so it's not your normal pace.
              Also, Kelly, according to Hutch. was "spree'ish", so drink was affecting her to some degree.
              Lewis also said the woman was "the worse for drink", so the effects of drink was noticeable in the woman.

              People rarely walk at a regular pace when they are under the influence. They don't always walk in a straight line either, and perhaps stopping to giggle once in a while.
              How fast they walk is important to you because you place trust in the apparent timing of the incident.

              Kelly meets up with Astrachan at Thrawl St., Hutchinson is a bit further north on Commercial St. ahead of them. They walk towards Hutch. and he walks on staying ahead of them till he gets to Fashion St.
              The distance from Fashion to Thrawl 230 ft (give or take a foot or so) on the Survey map.

              Kelly and Astrachan pass Hutch. and cross the road diagonally to Dorset St. they walk on down the street Hutch follows on behind them.
              The distance from the N/W corner of Fashion to the S/E corner of Dorset is about 110 ft.

              Kelly and Astrachan stop at Millers Court in Dorset St. for several minutes. Hutch said "three" but he doesn't have a watch.
              The distance from the S/E corner of Dorset to Millers Court is about 120 ft.

              So, all told these three have covered 460 ft (120+110+230), walking slowly, and maybe even pausing or stopping more than once or twice, we just don't know.
              Hutch reached his spot in Dorset St. opposite Millers Court about 2:15, because he said he stood around for about 45 minutes, leaving at 3:00 am.
              Once again though, the "45 minutes" is guesswork, was it more like 40 or 50?, which means he could have reached that spot about 2:10 or 2:20.

              Sarah Lewis only says she was at No.2 Millers Court at 2:30 am.
              Lewis could very easily have come down Dorset St. and arrived at Millers Court at 2:20, or even before, and seen Kelly & Astrachan enter the passage, then notice Hutch standing opposite.

              There is nothing critical timewise that contests such an argument.
              The only fixed time you have is the "3:00" when Hutch left the scene, all other times & timings are flexible.

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #97
                And perhaps Jon, lewis arrived later than 2.30,maybe 15 minutes later,using your reasoning.
                We have the times given,they cannot be changed.The reference to timing using the church chime cannot be changed.Lewis at Millers court at 2.20 is not in accordance with the evidence she gave.
                That's all I'm going to post on this particular topic.Readers can form their own opinion.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by harry View Post
                  And perhaps Jon, lewis arrived later than 2.30,maybe 15 minutes later,using your reasoning.
                  If she had arrived later than 2:30, then every written account that places her AT No.2 Millers Court must be wrong.

                  "I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning......"

                  Not "arrived", but actually "at", and as we know the church clock chimed on the half hour, then we can understand how she knew where she was at 2:30.



                  We have the times given,they cannot be changed.The reference to timing using the church chime cannot be changed.
                  Exactly, so you agree she cannot have arrived later than 2:30.

                  Lewis at Millers court at 2.20 is not in accordance with the evidence she gave.
                  That's all I'm going to post on this particular topic.Readers can form their own opinion.
                  She didn't give any statement about the time she arrived.

                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    So it is clear there would at least be a second sitting of the inquiry, and here we likely would have heard the testimony of Mrs Kennedy.
                    Hi Jon,

                    Perhaps we may also have heard testimony from others that corroborated that of Maxwell, and perhaps that is why Macdonald closed the inquest early.

                    Macdonald dismissed witness Maxwell (with a warning) in favour of Phillips, and Baxter dismissed Phillips in favour of witness Richardson. Richardson changed his story but Maxwell was steadfast and could not be broken. Curious.

                    Best regards, George
                    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Jon,

                      Perhaps we may also have heard testimony from others that corroborated that of Maxwell, and perhaps that is why Macdonald closed the inquest early.

                      Macdonald dismissed witness Maxwell (with a warning) in favour of Phillips, and Baxter dismissed Phillips in favour of witness Richardson. Richardson changed his story but Maxwell was steadfast and could not be broken. Curious.

                      Best regards, George
                      On the subject of Maxwell, it's what the coroner said that has intrigued me the most.

                      "You must be very careful about your evidence because it is very different to that given by other people" (or words to that effect).

                      Like who?

                      Did you ever ask yourself which witnesses he was talking about?
                      Who gave evidence before Maxwell?

                      Barnett.
                      Bowyer.
                      McCarthy.
                      Cox.
                      Prater.

                      Not one of those witnesses said Kelly was dead before 8:00 am, the first time Maxwell saw her.
                      No witness at the inquest knew when Kelly had died, none except Macdonald & Phillips, but Dr Phillips had not given his testimony yet.

                      So who was Macdonald talking about?
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Hi George and Jon, I've always thought there was more to Maxwell's testimony than has been dismissed. It's nice to see reasoned and rational debate from seasoned casebook stalwarts rather than the bickering that seems to be happening recently. As a newbie it's risky sticking ones head above the parapet and I don't want to be felled before I've seen action lol. I don't have a "candidate" phrasing it that way as I don't want to get into the suspect/person of interest decbarcle nor do I have a theory just many questions and queries and hopefully one day casebook luminaries will help me join some of the dots.

                        Helen x

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
                          Hi George and Jon, I've always thought there was more to Maxwell's testimony than has been dismissed. It's nice to see reasoned and rational debate from seasoned casebook stalwarts rather than the bickering that seems to be happening recently. As a newbie it's risky sticking ones head above the parapet and I don't want to be felled before I've seen action lol. I don't have a "candidate" phrasing it that way as I don't want to get into the suspect/person of interest decbarcle nor do I have a theory just many questions and queries and hopefully one day casebook luminaries will help me join some of the dots.

                          Helen x
                          Hello Helen, welcome.

                          There are a few members here who put more faith in Maxwell's claims, I'm not one of them. I do think she misidentified whomever she saw, but her story doesn't get debated much these days.
                          You sound like you have an open mind, see if you can keep it that way there are very few solid or reliable answers in this case. Debates can be quite entertaining if you just let logic be your guide.

                          Nice to see someone else from Yorkshire.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
                            Hi George and Jon, I've always thought there was more to Maxwell's testimony than has been dismissed. It's nice to see reasoned and rational debate from seasoned casebook stalwarts rather than the bickering that seems to be happening recently. As a newbie it's risky sticking ones head above the parapet and I don't want to be felled before I've seen action lol. I don't have a "candidate" phrasing it that way as I don't want to get into the suspect/person of interest decbarcle nor do I have a theory just many questions and queries and hopefully one day casebook luminaries will help me join some of the dots.

                            Helen x
                            Hi Helen, and welcome to the forum.

                            Thank you for the kind remarks, but it is Jon that is the seasoned casebook stalwart. I am but a relative newbie and the extent of my knowledge is nowhere near up to Jon's standard, but I do try to express my speculation and opinions in a cordial manner. I am one of the few members here who puts more faith in Maxwell's claims, as Abbilene said he was unable to break her and she refused to be intimidated by the Coroner, but that is just my opinion FWIW.

                            I don't have a "candidate" either, but I do have a single digit list of names that attract my attention more than others, Jon's suspect with the strange eyes being high on that list.

                            Cheers, George
                            Last edited by GBinOz; 07-07-2022, 01:40 AM.
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                            Comment


                            • "I noticed the time by the Spitafield's church clock". This is the evidence given by lewis,under oath, at Kelly's inquest. This information can be seen at the start of the first post on this thread,should anyone care to read it.
                              To notice the clock,Lewis had to be in a position outdoors,presumably Commercial street.Therefor Lewis could not have been,at 2.30 that morning,in a room in Millers Court.
                              Now Jon will argue that 'Noticed' might mean,she heard the chiming of the clock.THose reading my post can make up their own mind as to what the word 'Noticed' meant to Lewis,and to the inquest.
                              Being at,and arriving at,are interchangeable in this instance.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                "I noticed the time by the Spitafield's church clock". This is the evidence given by lewis,under oath, at Kelly's inquest. This information can be seen at the start of the first post on this thread,should anyone care to read it.
                                To notice the clock,Lewis had to be in a position outdoors,presumably Commercial street.Therefor Lewis could not have been,at 2.30 that morning,in a room in Millers Court.
                                It looks like you don't have a copy of the court record.
                                Lewis tells us two important details, first that she was AT Millers court AT 2:30, but she knew the time as she passed the church clock, she looked up at it.

                                She cannot be in two places at the same time. If it was 2:30 as she passed the clock, then it wasn't 2:30 when she was in or at Millers Court.
                                If she was at Millers Court at 2:30, then it was before 2:30 when she passed the clock.
                                You can't have it both ways.



                                Now Jon will argue that 'Noticed' might mean,she heard the chiming of the clock.THose reading my post can make up their own mind as to what the word 'Noticed' meant to Lewis,and to the inquest.
                                Being at,and arriving at,are interchangeable in this instance.
                                She says she heard the 3:30 chime, so clearly she could hear a 2:30 chime, she was at the same location for both.

                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X