Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kennedy and Lewis

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

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

    Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

    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


    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Pennington.jpg
Views:	68
Size:	35.9 KB
ID:	789362
    From Hull Daily Mail
    Nov 12, 1888

    Could this have been referring to Nov 9, or Nov 10?

    Cheers,George

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    what!?! i could id my wife by her finger nail. your quickly losing all credibility aussie george.
    Hi Abby,

    It is gratifying to hear that at least at one stage I had some credibility. 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.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by C. F. Leon View Post

    I've thought about Barnett's identification over the "'ears" and wondered if maybe he was going by Mary wearing her hair in a particular style, or perhaps a torn earlobe, or maybe earrings that he gave her- something of that nature. Maybe he was just an "ear man"?
    Maybe. You would expect that he identified her at the mortuary, but I couldn't find anything to contradict his statement that he identified her through the broken window. Her body wouldn't have been a pretty sight and I wonder whether he took a brief look and identified the body as the person he expected to be there?

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 07-09-2022, 06:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • C. F. Leon
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Ms Diddles

    Accepting the evidence of Maxwell and others doesn't conflict with the night time murder if it is accepted that it was someone else. Hutchinson was the last person to see MJK. If she left her room after that and allowed someone else to use her room, then the only conflicting evidence is the identification by Barnett. My wife and I have been together 30 years and I could not identify her by her eyes and ears alone.

    Cheers, George
    I've thought about Barnett's identification over the "'ears" and wondered if maybe he was going by Mary wearing her hair in a particular style, or perhaps a torn earlobe, or maybe earrings that he gave her- something of that nature. Maybe he was just an "ear man"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Ms Diddles

    Accepting the evidence of Maxwell and others doesn't conflict with the night time murder if it is accepted that it was someone else. Hutchinson was the last person to see MJK. If she left her room after that and allowed someone else to use her room, then the only conflicting evidence is the identification by Barnett. My wife and I have been together 30 years and I could not identify her by her eyes and ears alone.

    Cheers, George
    what!?! i could id my wife by her finger nail. your quickly losing all credibility aussie george.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

    Yeah, Abby!

    I'm sure it was Abberline.

    Had it been Dew, I'd have likely taken it with a pinch of salt!

    Agreed all the other evidence points to a night time murder.

    I just find Maxwell's evidence quite compelling and difficult to dismiss.
    Hi Ms Diddles

    Accepting the evidence of Maxwell and others doesn't conflict with the night time murder if it is accepted that it was someone else. Hutchinson was the last person to see MJK. If she left her room after that and allowed someone else to use her room, then the only conflicting evidence is the identification by Barnett. My wife and I have been together 30 years and I could not identify her by her eyes and ears alone.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi diddles
    was that abberline or dew, our old reliable friend? lol

    either way, IMHO since all the other evidence points to a night time murder, and away from a daylight morning murder, whether she was a nosy busy body or not, I think she simply had the wrong Mary. or who she thought was Mary.
    but her story does have a ring of truth about it as you say, which is why I think she was mistaken and not lying.
    Yeah, Abby!

    I'm sure it was Abberline.

    Had it been Dew, I'd have likely taken it with a pinch of salt!

    Agreed all the other evidence points to a night time murder.

    I just find Maxwell's evidence quite compelling and difficult to dismiss.
    Last edited by Ms Diddles; 07-08-2022, 04:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

    Hi Abby!

    I agree that busy-body types love gossiping about other peoples relationships.

    I personally don't read Maxwell as being of that type though.

    More pertinently, neither did Abberline, who IIRC said something to the effect of her being a respectable woman and not an attention seeker (and he would be well placed to know the difference!).


    hi diddles
    was that abberline or dew, our old reliable friend? lol

    either way, IMHO since all the other evidence points to a night time murder, and away from a daylight morning murder, whether she was a nosy busy body or not, I think she simply had the wrong Mary. or who she thought was Mary.
    but her story does have a ring of truth about it as you say, which is why I think she was mistaken and not lying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    That's an interesting point. If Maxwell knew Barnett and associated Kelly with him, it's difficult to see how she could have got the wrong person.

    I've always thought the description of her wearing only a chemise, with clothes folded up and boots by the fire, sounds more like someone who has gone to bed for the night. I wonder if she would have done all that if she'd just picked up an opportunistic punter in the morning for a quick liaison. Together with the cries of murder I tend to favour the ~4 am ToD and AMan as the killer. Somehow, Maxwell must have been mistaken, or realised she was but couldn't bring herself to admit it in front of everyone.
    I agree that if you look at the bigger picture, the simplest solution is, as you say, that Maxwell must have been mistaken.

    The problem for me is that if you look at her actual testimony, she sounds utterly credible (backed up by Maurice Lewis's testimony and Abberline's character reference).

    As a rule, I always tend towards the most simplistic, least dramatic solutions to these mini mysteries.

    This one is the exception.

    Whichever way I look at this, Maxwell's testimony has the ring of truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi wulf
    nah-nosy gossippy busy bodies usually pick up on things like other peoples relationships. she was probably gossipping with another women and they were talking about Mary and barnetts name came up.



    agree, she was killed in the middle of the night. and probably around four, but I favor blotchy, or hutch after blotchy left. aman story is patent nonsense.
    Hi Abby!

    I agree that busy-body types love gossiping about other peoples relationships.

    I personally don't read Maxwell as being of that type though.

    More pertinently, neither did Abberline, who IIRC said something to the effect of her being a respectable woman and not an attention seeker (and he would be well placed to know the difference!).



    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    That's an interesting point. If Maxwell knew Barnett and associated Kelly with him, it's difficult to see how she could have got the wrong person.

    I've always thought the description of her wearing only a chemise, with clothes folded up and boots by the fire, sounds more like someone who has gone to bed for the night. I wonder if she would have done all that if she'd just picked up an opportunistic punter in the morning for a quick liaison. Together with the cries of murder I tend to favour the ~4 am ToD and AMan as the killer. Somehow, Maxwell must have been mistaken, or realised she was but couldn't bring herself to admit it in front of everyone.
    hi wulf
    nah-nosy gossippy busy bodies usually pick up on things like other peoples relationships. she was probably gossipping with another women and they were talking about Mary and barnetts name came up.

    I've always thought the description of her wearing only a chemise, with clothes folded up and boots by the fire, sounds more like someone who has gone to bed for the night. I wonder if she would have done all that if she'd just picked up an opportunistic punter in the morning for a quick liaison.
    agree, she was killed in the middle of the night. and probably around four, but I favor blotchy, or hutch after blotchy left. aman story is patent nonsense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Abby,

    The vomiting would also have brought up any food in her stomach, but a meal of fish pie was found in the body of the victim. It is clear that whoever Maxwell was speaking with that morning was not the victim of the murder. However, Maxwell's story was reinforced by Maurice Lewis, and it was rumoured, by others who said they saw MJK that morning. Were they all mistaken?

    Barnett said he left MJK because she had other prostitutes in her room. It seems possible that a different woman was murdered and it was MJK that discovered the body and made the cry of murder. It would also explain the folded clothing, and would not be in conflict with the medical estimate of the TOD. Was the mistaken identity by Maxwell, Maurice Lewis and perhaps others, or by Barnett in his identification?

    Cheers, George
    hi george-yes the empty stomach from vomiting point ive made before too. just forgot to include in the post, but it is another strong point to the woman that maxwell thought was Mary was someone else. lewis was probably just parrotting maxwell or others and his later sighting of mary makes it even more improbable he was correct. plus hes just too nebulous a witness any way. so yes they were all mistaken.

    the rest of your post, all due respect, is ridiculous. im beginning to think your a pseudo conspiracy guy. lol
    and btw barnett being an intimate lover would have had no problem iding her, he could still have easily done it even if she was worse off.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 07-08-2022, 02:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aethelwulf
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

    I also find it interesting that Maxwell mentions that she knows Joe Barnet in relation to Mary, which to me suggests she knows who she's talking about.
    That's an interesting point. If Maxwell knew Barnett and associated Kelly with him, it's difficult to see how she could have got the wrong person.

    I've always thought the description of her wearing only a chemise, with clothes folded up and boots by the fire, sounds more like someone who has gone to bed for the night. I wonder if she would have done all that if she'd just picked up an opportunistic punter in the morning for a quick liaison. Together with the cries of murder I tend to favour the ~4 am ToD and AMan as the killer. Somehow, Maxwell must have been mistaken, or realised she was but couldn't bring herself to admit it in front of everyone.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X