Who did Sarah See?

[Malcolm X]

flipping heck there's loads of inquest reports, plus they're full of additional information that's not mentioned at all, in any of my books..... none of them !

i've very pissed off about this.

``When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court. I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half- past three. I heard the clock strike.``

now i could not read all the others in great detail, because quite honestly i'm not sure which ones refer to MJK, but i did notice quite often that the Star mentions that the suspect looked dark and foreign and this was in reference to the other murders...... i kept seeing this!..... the Daily Star looks as if it's embelishing the known facts, but i cant be sure just yet

i'm very upet that other authors have not at least mentioned some of this, we are now back to square one, there is also a very good suspect description of a guy close to LE GRAND, seen hastling women, but i cant remember which day, it was in the Star from the 10th nov onwards.

i never realised that this stuff even existed, shame on me ! but it's not just me because the authors haven't even mentioned correctly what was said by COX/ LEWIS at the main inquest, BLOTCHY FACE actually slammed the door behind him as if to say ``clear off woman`` to M.COX, it's most odd indeed !

i think we're back to step 1 BEN, because I dont believe any of this original stuff about MJK any more and i dont think that i can form a judgement until i download all of the inquests and read it quietly at home, because the suspect descriptions and what others have said is far more detailed than Sudgen's book, he's only mentioned about 1/3 of it.

i.e as above, S.Lewis saw GH and a couple further up the road, but GH states that he saw MJK at 2am, so this is shot to pieces, well, at least one of these is wrong.... but which one we dont know yet, because S.Lewis might be wrong about her time and this was back at 2am, rather than 2.20 to 2.30 am.

it might take me, with all this other stuff that's going on in my life, at least 6 months to study all of this...... it's not just MJK, because all the other murders, suspect discriptions/ additional stuff is totally different to my books.

[lynn cates]

sources of information

Hello Malcolm. There is a good deal of such on Casebook. But also Evans and Skinner's "Ultimate Companion" is full of police material that I find helpful.

And if you ever seek some period papers, give me a shout.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm. There is a good deal of such on Casebook. But also Evans and Skinner's "Ultimate Companion" is full of police material that I find helpful.

And if you ever seek some period papers, give me a shout.

Cheers.
LC

thanks, i'll probably have to download everything

[Malcolm X]

Hi John.
No-one else saw a man dressed like Astrachan, agreed.

Interestingly though, we don't even need Hutchinson's story.
Sarah Lewis saw the couple (ahead of Hutch) go up the passage, she also saw a man (Hutch) outside the passage in Dorset St., who eventually came to stand at Kelly's door.
Regardless what the male companion looked like, with or without the Astrachan coat, Lewis saw them in the passage heading towards room 13.

We don't need Hutchinson at all, especially if we discard the description he gave, what is left provides no value to the story.

Regards, Jon S.

it'll take till next year to suss out this mess and there's no book that'll help me, i need additional information from the inquests/ newspapers, it looks like GH/S.Lewis saw the same thing, which points to him being there, but he waited till 3am, so we dont know if GH saw him leave and then went in himself, or if he broke in at 4am, or finally is innocent.

thus GH is still crucially important, because regardless of me missing vital information, he still looks extremely guilty, because i've studied him closely along with BEN, unfortunately; this has been at the expense of looking at the inquest/papers, because it's all the other stuff that needs to be checked over too.

.

[Rubyretro]

i would also be highly suspicious of what Kennedy sais, plus seeing MJK in the morning too, i think many of you are forgetting that these witnesses are down and out prostitutes/ dregs of society etc, i sound awfall saying this and it's very politically incorrect too, but these women would've been pretty bad, liars, thiefs, beggars the lot, very low I.Qs etc, the occasional one might have been ok, but is this S.Lewis, nobody knows!

Malcolm -I don't know how you can sweepingly dismiss "these women" as all having "very low IQs" and all being liars and thieves. What ? because they were poor ? It's reassuring that you think that the occasional one might have been "ok".

I think a very good case could be made for the idea that women
earning their livings as prostitutes and out on the streets at night would have to be 'streetwise' and alert to danger and with an eye open to the
'main chance' and as such would be very observant of people and good at
reading body language. As such Sarah Lewis would probably have been more aware of Wideawake Man and what he was doing in the Street, than a so called intellectual, strolling along lost in thought, composing anagrams.

Mrs Lewis's testimony makes believable sense to me. As Tom pointed out, even if Mrs Kennedy was a separate person, the Police clearly took Lewis
as the important witness.

[Wickerman]

flipping heck there's loads of inquest reports, plus they're full of additional information that's not mentioned at all, in any of my books..... none of them !

[...edit...]

i think we're back to step 1 BEN, because I dont believe any of this original stuff about MJK any more and i dont think that i can form a judgement until i download all of the inquests and read it quietly at home, because the suspect descriptions and what others have said is far more detailed than Sudgen's book, he's only mentioned about 1/3 of it.

We might like to think such eminent historians as Phil Sugden saw every news report ever published, sadly this is unlikely.
The Casebook has provided an excellent resource for all future researchers, as I'm sure you appreciate.
One of the reason's I was puzzled by your insistence that my quotes were wrong was that I assumed you were well aware of the Press Reports available to eveyone, therefore how could they be wrong?

Regardless, I am pleased you now appreciate the wealth of detail at our disposal, and no doubt you will soon also appreciate the difficulty we have in assembling so many edited statements into one original account.

Regards, Jon S.

[Marlowe]

LOL...oh yea, have fun with the Press Reports...a certain percentage of them actually has Sarah Lewis saying that Wideawake was TALL!...not short and stout....but TALL and stout!

Also, the Kennedy sisters were NOT dismissed as liars at the time. In fact, one of the best reporters of the period had quite the opposite opinion. Keep in mind that Kennedy knew who Kelly was...Lewis did not.

So, as far as who was or was not called at the inquest ...please remember that MacDonald cut it short...for whatever reason...but the fact is, this inquest was WAY shorter than the inquests that came before. So trying to judge a witnesses worth by whether they were called or not, will result in error.

[Ben]

a certain percentage of them actually has Sarah Lewis saying that Wideawake was TALL!

A very small percentage, Marlowe, and they were wrong. Again, it cannot be stressed enough that newspaper reports were susceptible to error, and it's inevitable that one or two should confuse the occasional detail. Yes, there were newspapers that had the wideawake man as tall, but all the others referred to him as "not tall, but stout". The prudent course in such a case is to accept the latter (i.e. the more frequently occurring by far) as the correct version. The same may be said of the wideawake man who was certainly standing near the lodging house, as reported by the vast majority of newspapers AND the police statement, and not outside the doorway of the deceased's home, as reported by one wrong newspaper. I can only reiterate the previously offered advice to read as much press coverage as possible, as only then will a researcher be in a position to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I realise that the inquest was cut short, but the tale of "Mrs. Kennedy" appeared in the papers as early as the 10th November, only to sink without trace very shortly thereafter, well in advance of the inquest. The likely explanation for her disappearance is the one provided in the Star; she heard (or heard of) Lewis' account and attempted to pass it off her own experience. It is very unlikely that Kennedy knew Kelly personally. I'm aware that such a claim is made in one newspaper from the 10th November, but all sorts of tall tales were doing the rounds at that stage.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... The likely explanation for her (Kennedy) disappearance is ...

Ben.
Who said she disappeared?

It is very unlikely that Kennedy knew Kelly personally.

Why?

Jon

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I don't mean disappeared in the physical sense. I meant that after a brief appearance in the newspapers very soon after the discovery of the murder, we never hear from her again, and she doesn't appear at the inquest.

Why?

I should rephrase: there is no good reason for concluding that Kennedy knew Kelly.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I don't mean disappeared in the physical sense. I meant that after a brief appearance in the newspapers very soon after the discovery of the murder, we never hear from her again, and she doesn't appear at the inquest.

Hi Ben.
Would you say, "never hear again" just like Cox, like Harvey, like Prater? like Paumier?
In other words, nothing strange at all?
In fact you provide the best indication that Kennedy was not an attention seeker. Kennedy did not chase the press any further, correct?

I should rephrase: there is no good reason for concluding that Kennedy knew Kelly.

Without any indication to the contrary we might reasonably conclude that there is no good reason, beyond happenstance, to suggest they may have known each other, just because No.2 was opposite No.13.
On that I would agree.

However, we do have the direct statement in the press which does suggest Kennedy knew Kelly, even if only by sight but not personally.

Therefore your wording is not only incorrect but designed to give a false impression. At this late date we are in no position to determine whether the "direct statement" was accurate, but it exists.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

brain trust

Hello Ruby.

"I don't know how you can sweepingly dismiss "these women" as all having "very low IQs""

I'll say. We are all familiar with the description of Kate as scholarly. Recently I found a snippet that claimed the same of MJK. Not to mention that Liz was trilingual.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Sorry Lynn -I thought IQ was something different to having the benefit of education and wealth.

So would you think that people living in some far flung african village who had never seen a school all had low IQs ?

Why would being a poor victorian East Ender mean that you had a low IQ ?

Being a prostitute was probably the only career option for some women at the time -it doesn't mean that they were two stupid to be able to weigh up and describe a man that they saw on the street, in my opinion.

[Marlowe]

Ben,

The press did not drop Kennedy's story after the inquest. That's simply not true. She's mentioned in the same articles that also mention Sarah Lewis, in fact.

Not only that, but Sims mentions the 'Kennedy sisters' long after the inquest, saying that the killer probably looked like the man they saw.

There's no reason that I'm aware of to distrust her.

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Ruby.

"I thought IQ was something different to having the benefit of education and wealth."

Actually, all 3 are different. Of course, without decent IQ, one will never obtain an education, being incapable of it. (I am not confusing education with a degree--those are quite different as well.)

Not sure I understand the rest of your post since I was agreeing with you that Liz, Kate and MJ were all quite bright.

Cheers.
LC