Kennedy and Lewis

[Wickerman]

From Lewis' inquest testimony;

"On the Friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller's Court I met the same man with a female - in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House - near the market - He had then no overcoat on - but he had the bag & the same hat trousers & undercoat
I passed by them and looked back at at the man - I was frightened - I looked again when I got to the corner of Dorset Street. I have not seen the man since I should know him if I did - "

I can't imagine you would intentionally omit the beginning of her inquest testimony, I've quoted it myself more than once...

Sarah Lewis having been sworn deposed as follows: I live at 24 Great Powell St. Spitalfields. I am a Laundress.
-- I know Mrs Keyler in Millers Court. I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning she lives at No 2 in the Court on the left on the first floor I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it
-- When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House. He was not tall – but stout – had on a wideawake black hat
-- I did not notice his clothes
-- another young man with a woman passed along

She was AT her house at half-past two.
Clearly then, Millers Court being only a couple of minutes away, she would have passed the clock "about" 2:30, which is exactly what she says in your quote. There was no "about" in my quote.


Regardless, I see we are reverting to the inadequate times once again - why is this?

I have to wonder if members know they cannot separate Lewis seeing Hutchinson loitering, while noticing the only couple in the street, from Hutchinson's own story of loitering, while watching the only couple in the street.
Obviously, these are two accounts of the same story - so the time is the same!, regardless of what time we think it is.

Why cling to inadequate and incorrect times when the two stories demonstrate the point?
This is the important question.

(I wasn't able to post yesterday, nationwide (Canada) internet blackout by one particular provider)

[Wickerman]

Sorry I couldn't get to this yesterday - internet blackout.

It is very frustrating that so many papers reported it differently. Previously you asked me to quote not from the Press but from Lewis Inquest statement as per the court papers. What did she say according to that?

If you look at the previous post #136, I provided Joshua with a quote from the court record, the last line of which reads:

"Another young man with a woman, passed along"

That is it, this is all the court recorder Hodgkinson chose to write down, not necessarily her words, verbatim, more than likely just a summary of what she said.

Also, inquest courts took testimony down in long-hand, which as a means of recording is not fast enough. Quite often they will provide a summary of what the witness said, as above. Also, they do not always take down the question, only the reply.
Press reporters took testimony down in short-hand, much quicker, more complete. You may notice some testimony published by the press is quite a bit longer than the court record. Which is to our benefit as students of the case, we learn a bit more.
However, then we are faced with what the news editor chooses to include, and what he can fit in the space allowed on that page, on that day.
It's often a case of swings & roundabouts, unfortunately.

Let me explain a little more on your second point.

What I meant was, the first place to start looking for testimony is the court record, not the press. - 1st the court record, then, the press.

In this case the court record says she was "at" Millers court at 2:30, but later in the same account she says it was "about" 2:30 when she walked passed the clock.
Well yes, of course it would be, there is barely 2-3 minutes walk difference between passing the clock and being at No.2.
But, what does "about" mean?

In that court record she makes a specific point of saying it was 2:30 when she was at No.2, this does not mean she arrived at No.2 at 2:30, only that, at that specific time she knew she was in the house.
How could she know that? - because the clock chimes on the half hour. This is how Lewis knew where she was when the clock chimed 2:30 - "I was AT No.2 Millers Court at 2:30".

Now, later she also says that earlier, when I walked passed the clock it was "about" 2:30.
So, what does "about" mean?
Was it 2:25, or was it 2:20 when she passed the clock?, she doesn't say, only that it was "about" 2:30.

This is why I say don't bother with trying to analyze who is right or wrong, the story told by Lewis & Hutchinson makes it clear they saw the same couple - so the time was the same, regardless that we do not agree what that time was. Our disagreement is not relevant to the story.

So as I was saying before, first seek out the court record, unfortunately we only have two cases where they still exist; Eddowes & Kelly. Then, seek out as many London & National newspaper coverage to get a wider understanding of what was said. Some here tend to find one newspaper that happens to say what suits their theory and ignore all the rest.
Thats not the way to approach these cases.
Collate as many press versions as you can find, and proceed from there.
There's also another point, just like the police at the time, they took all statements as given in good faith, we should do the same. Don't fall back on the "lying witness" argument just to save your theory, it's too obvious.

Also interested in your thoughts on the fact Hutchinson said he saw no one except a constable at the end of the street and a man entering the Lodging house. We it that he was responding to a question on seeing someone else as a question meaning did he see any single men as a man with a woman would not be seen as a possible murderer? He doesn't mention Lewis either but that's because she is a woman so again not a possible murderer.

Precisely, the police did not consider the killer to be a woman, so Sgt. Badham is only asking Hutchinson about seeing men, whether there were any women in the street is not relevant to Badham.
As you correctly point out, Hutchinson was only talking about seeing men, one man entered a lodging house, but no-one else, meaning he saw no other men.
Which also means there was no other couple in the street - couple meaning a man & a woman. I had to say that because this was Victorian England and that is what a couple meant back then, unlike today