Who did Sarah See?

[Malcolm X]

.
The fact remains he saw Kelly with a 'well-dressed' man about 2:00 am Friday morning, the details can be left aside for the reason I gave above. Compare that with the fact Sarah Lewis saw a couple go up the passage while someone (Hutch?) was standing 'on watch' in Dorset St.
This identifies the couple in question as the same couple followed by Hutchinson.


.Best Wishes, Jon S.

no, this is just a brief quote of yours..... ``the fact remains that he saw``
``fact that Sarah lewis saw``.....no this is where you're going wrong, there are no facts that either of these characters saw anything, as said, it's most likely that they saw nothing.

her initial statement of events does not mention any of this, this is you believing the tabloid rubbish about the inquest to suit your own agenda, tell me why none of this is mentioned here.

finally, are you sure the tabloids aren't confusing what M.Cox said with S.Lewis, because no man was seen outside MJKs except M.Cox and this was blotchy face.

[Malcolm X]

On the contrary Malcolm the one person who apparently has no idea is the same one who is not studying the reports.

Sarah Lewis did not 'keep changing her story', all the news reports came from ONE source, the inquest. She never spoke again!

Sarah Lewis gave one brief summary to the police as her pre-inquest statement. That is for the police to introduce her into evidence, it is not supposed to cover her entire statement.
All her evidence will be given in the form of answers to questions, she will not give a 'story' in her own words.

The only time Lewis spoke was at the inquest.

All the news accounts are edited versions of her inquest testimony, that is why 'we' today must reassemble her evidence.
Sarah Lewis only spoke once, and not to the press!

If you find fault with the piecemeal presentation of her evidence in the papers, blame the press!
Sarah Lewis is not at fault!

Regards, Jon S.

sorry her stuff is not right, what you're posting up about her is drivel, what is reported that she said can not be seen as accurate, because i'm going by what YOU'VE POSTED UP only.

it keeps contradicting itself, when she returned home she only saw GH outside, THIS IS THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN, now you're adding all of this and that, sorry i dont buy any of it, what you've uploaded is disjointed and a confusing mess.

I told you the only person to see MJK and BF is mary cox, this is here on this website and in the Sugden book, this S.Lewis extra stuff is a mystery to me !

but you're not helping yourself, because you're also twisting her words to suit you, she saw him outside looking up the court, now what the hell is so hard about this that you dont understand...... he was clearly not inside millers court and she did not follow anyone up the court, this was M.Cox only

please upload exactly what she said in order that was printed by the newspapers, because this does not correspond to the long established version of what she said.

now you cant blame me for this, because this does not appear on this website, and if it is known by people better than I, then why isn't it mentioned here, this tells me that it's not worthy of mentioning, because Sugden doesn't mention this either.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman, you are trying to make sense out of S.Lewis, who keeps changing her story all the time, she has no idea ...

On the contrary Malcolm the one person who apparently has no idea is the same one who is not studying the reports.

Sarah Lewis did not 'keep changing her story', all the news reports came from ONE source, the inquest. She never spoke again!

Sarah Lewis gave one brief summary to the police as her pre-inquest statement. That is for the police to introduce her into evidence, it is not supposed to cover her entire statement.
All her evidence will be given in the form of answers to questions, she will not give a 'story' in her own words.

The only time Lewis spoke was at the inquest.

All the news accounts are edited versions of her inquest testimony, that is why 'we' today must reassemble her evidence.
Sarah Lewis only spoke once, and not to the press!

If you find fault with the piecemeal presentation of her evidence in the papers, blame the press!
Sarah Lewis is not at fault!

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

And to the names of these impeccable witnesses who so obviously conversed with the real Whitechapel murderer - Matthew Packer, "Mrs. Kennedy", Sarah Roney, "Mrs. Paumier" et al - must be added Sgt Stephen White, whose posthumous account (so obviously authored by White himself) referred to an encounter with a man with eyes like luminous glow-worms (like all serial killers have), long tapering fingers (all the better for knife wielding), and a musical voice (a murderously musical voice, obviously).

Meanwhile, back on our planet...

this is exactly the sort of crap that TOM and Wickerman believe, well done Ben.

This is an exaggerated tabloid image of what these so called witnesses have seen, this is the type of person that would never be anything like the real JTR, i mean carrying a black bag..... oh dear oh dear, how rediculous..... no Prostitute would ever go with someone looking like that, even if it's an exaggeration, because this person seen also scared the women he talked to, so there you go, this type would also be stopped by the police!

these are simply Red Herrings and have no link to LE GRAND at all, LE GRAND would not dress like this, or pay a suspect to say this, and writing to a newspaper is something that even i could do, there is nothing strong that links LA GRAND to JTR, it is yet another Sickert pile of nonsense.

no posh guy carrying a black bag or a parcel was seen anywhere near Eddowes and Stride....before and close to the time of murder, and with regards to MJK, only BLOTCHY FACE and GH were seen.

the most likely person to be JTR is a Joe Barnett/sailor boy lookalike and most likely GH, because this type keeps being seen and is the most realistic to avoid detection.

the posh guy is probably tormenting women on purpose as a sick joke, based on this tabloid image that is all over GOOGLE and is based on artwork seen in the tabloid newspapers at that time. they have created this character back then and not i and cemented him into the locals minds, they could also be lieing about seeing this type.

whatever the case, realising that seeing someone looking like this is highly suspicious, why on earth would JTR risk arrest by dressing like this, and especially during the day too !

please get a reality check..... JTR would dress totally the opposite to this, thus LA DE DA did not exist, GH made it up based on this photo.... FOR SURE!

[Malcolm X]

Wickerman, you are trying to make sense out of S.Lewis, who keeps changing her story all the time, she has no idea if she's coming or going and no idea what the hell she's talking about, GH stated that he waited outside millers court and all that we can go on, is that maybe she saw him.

but by his own admission, he admitted to being there from 2 to 3am, so this we have to accept as probably fact, we therefore dont really need to know what the hell she saw do we... because it's only useful for what he maybe looked like

JTR was almost definitely seen with Eddowes and this suspect does not look like a LA DE DA type carrying a black bag scaring women, and this does not correspond to any of the Stride suspects too, this guy you keep mentioning is playing a joke and scaring women on purpose, JTR would not behave like this.

this guy not only fooled the women back then, he's fooling you and Tom too.

GH is definitely talking crap about what LA DE DA looked like, it's over the top and JTR would definitely not dress like that, because dressing like this attracts too much attention, you saying that this is maybe true, is flying directly in the face of most ripperologists here, it is almost accepted as fact that GH made up this decription, but why he made it up we're not sure yet.

i'm not really bothering too much with answering your posts right now, simply because you and Tom are making yourselves look stupid, without me needing to defend myself that much.

[Wickerman]

P.S. Why the hell didn't they ask Mulshaw for a description of his man at the Nichols inquest? Perhaps he didn't take notice, but still, he should have been asked.

Sort of boggles the mind, he must have been asked by the police. Sadly no pre-inquest statements have survived.

"With regard to the Buck's-row tragedy a man was seen and spoken to in the street, but not much attention was paid to him, and he went away, and has never since been noticed."

There was also a man who walked past the police & doctors with the body, I wonder if it was the same man Mulshaw saw, he's hovering around?

And this passing comment...
"A third witness, a dairyman of Little Turner-street, Commercial-road, has given information respecting a man with a black bag, who was supposed to have committed the Buck's-row murder,..."

Say's who?

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

A certain joking yet menacing and patronising tone perhaps?

And shall i take it one step further?

Dear Boss,
I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits.

written on paper proper by someone with a modicum of education and class.

and finally..


The Jews are the men that wont be blamed for nothing

ambiguosly on purpose?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

Obviously, I'm with you in believing beyond all doubt that Packer was full of it. The relevance here (to me) is that this article was submitted by Le Grand, not Packer. The 'old man' bit is Le Grand's voice. In his flawed repetitions of his story, Packer never mentioned the 'old man' bit. Does this make Mulshaw's man or Le Grand himself the Ripper? Not at all, but it's a curious fact nonetheless, and one of many.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

With that thought in mind....

On Nov. 9th, Mrs Paumier said, "a man, dressed like a gentleman, came to her, and said, "I suppose you have heard about the murder in Dorset-street."

Remember what the stranger said to Packer?
"...I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes."

Then there's Mulshaw, the nightwatchman round the corner from Bucks Row, a stranger came past him and said:
"Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street."

Do we hear the same voice?Regards, Jon S.

A certain joking yet menacing and patronising tone perhaps?

[Tom_Wescott]

He was more of a capri and toe-shoe kind of guy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Why the hell didn't they ask Mulshaw for a description of his man at the Nichols inquest? Perhaps he didn't take notice, but still, he should have been asked.

[Wickerman]

Yes, and would you like to know who's voice you're hearing? The guy who wrote up that piece for the Evening News...

Charles Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Stop peaking over my shoulder while I'm writing my book!

Did LeGrand wear a cutaway-coat?
:-)

[Ben]

And to the names of these impeccable witnesses who so obviously conversed with the real Whitechapel murderer - Matthew Packer, "Mrs. Kennedy", Sarah Roney, "Mrs. Paumier" et al - must be added Sgt Stephen White, whose posthumous account (so obviously authored by White himself) referred to an encounter with a man with eyes like luminous glow-worms (like all serial killers have), long tapering fingers (all the better for knife wielding), and a musical voice (a murderously musical voice, obviously).

Meanwhile, back on our planet...

[Tom_Wescott]

Remember what the stranger said to Packer?
"...I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes."

Then there's Mulshaw, the nightwatchman round the corner from Bucks Row, a stranger came past him and said:
"Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street."

Do we hear the same voice?

Yes, and would you like to know who's voice you're hearing? The guy who wrote up that piece for the Evening News...

Charles Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Stop peaking over my shoulder while I'm writing my book!

[Wickerman]

I'll do you better than that:

Bethnal Green man-well dressed seen by Sarah Lewis- "Its something the Lady's don't like..."
Astrakhan man-seen by George Hutchinson-well dressed- Laughing with MK then "you;ll be allright for what I have told you.."
Marshall's man-Respectably dressed-seen by Marshall-"You will say anything but your prayers.."

There is a certain thread no?

With that thought in mind....

On Nov. 9th, Mrs Paumier said, "a man, dressed like a gentleman, came to her, and said, "I suppose you have heard about the murder in Dorset-street."

Remember what the stranger said to Packer?
"...I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes."

Then there's Mulshaw, the nightwatchman round the corner from Bucks Row, a stranger came past him and said:
"Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street."

Do we hear the same voice?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

The problem with a lot of these "well-dressed" sightings is that they are either transparently bogus or have nothing to do with the identity of the real killer. For instance, Sarah Lewis had nothing to do with that "something the ladies don't like" quote. This was yet another offering from either Mrs. Kennedy or one of the other non-inquest-attending witnesses who offered dubious accounts involving spooky-looking men before they were swiftly discarded. Sarah Lewis' real Bethnal Green man was obviously just a casual punter who picked an imprudent moment in that area's history to try to procure a prostitute, and was evidently neither opulently-dressed nor offering silly pseudo-witticisms.

Marshall obviously fares rather better in the credibility stakes, but his "anything but your prayers" man was evidently not the killer of Stride. Or more specifically, he was clearly not the broad-shouldered man who approached from Commercial Road, assaulted, and in all likelihood, killed her.

Once you remove the discredited nonsense from the bulk of evidence under assessment, you'll be reassured by the lack of ostentatiously-dressed spectres haunting the district, and by the absence of any reason to contemplate "gentleman Jack" as anything other than a grotesque glamorization of what was a series of brutal murders that were perpetrated, in all likelihood, by a grubby nondescript.

All the best,
Ben