Originally posted by Sunny Delight
View Post
"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.
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
I presume you are aware that Barnett testified that when he last saw MJK in her room at about 7:30 PM on the evening before the body was found there was another woman in the room with them.
Leave a comment: