Who did Sarah See?

[Sally]

Ah but..

Surely there is no contradiction there - because of course he must have walked both sharply and silently. But then, if you were a wealthy Jew hanging out on anti-semitic Drosset Street in the wee small hours, I dare say you might attempt the same.

What I don't understand is how he his eyelashes changed colour overnight? I wish I could get mine to do that.

[Ben]

I would have to say both, Sally, although this does raise another interesting point. Jon quoted Hutchinson's police statement on the subject of the Astrakhan man's gait:

"walked very sharp"

But when speaking to the press:

"One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly."

He just noticed this "one thing", you understand...!

[Sally]

Even if people are determined to resist the conclusion at that Hutchinson clearly fabricated at least some key aspects of his account

To which account do you refer? Police or Press? Hmm. The devil's in the detail you know.

[Ben]

"That there could be two 'well-dressed' men on the same street corner at the same time heading in the same direction, each with a 'hatless' woman, is beyond coincidence,..."

But none of this is even correct, Jon, let alone “coincidence”.

Sarah Lewis did not describe a “well-dressed” man.

Astrakhan and BG-man were not reported as being “on the same street corner”.

They were not reported as “heading in the same direction”.

Sarah Lewis did not describe a “hatless” woman.

As far as Kennedy’s parroting is concerned, there’s no “maybe” about it. There is simply no other explanation that accounts for the striking similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy account, the Star report concerning an account being plagiarized by “half a dozen women”, and Kennedy's conspicuous absence from the inquest. This is not “subjective reasoning” but the recognition of a frankly inescapable reality. Even if people are determined to resist the conclusion at that Hutchinson clearly fabricated at least some key aspects of his account, the reality is that it was discredited by the police at the time. My refusal to “un-discredit” it does not equate to “subjective reasoning” either.

I hope you won’t mind my saying so, but as far as the killer’s identity is concerned, you seem quite insistent that a respectably-dressed, possibly wealthy and/or educated individual should feature in the equation.

Hi Fisherman,

“Never - NEVER!! - interfere with what I post to others!”

"when it comes to my dealings with other posters, you stay off my back.”

Whoah there, big felluh!

We seem to be missing that crucial magic word here.

As it happens, I was only offering advice, which unlike “oppression”, you are at liberty to ignore if you wish.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Jon was simply seeking confirmation that you weren’t accusing Lewis of date-disorienting. There’s really no need for you to recite your "confused date" Hutchinson theory all over again."

Never - NEVER!! - interfere with what I post to others! It is none of your business. If you do so once again, I shall take it upon me to ALWAYS tell you, whenever you mention the possible role of Hutchinson as a liar/killer, and no matter who you tell it to, that you are repeating yourself and that there is no need for it. Make no mistake about it, Ben - I WILL do so!

I´m afraid your days as an oppressor are over when it comes to what I post to others. I am perfectly willing to keep my posting against you to a minimum for reasons of sheer sanity, but when it comes to my dealings with other posters, you stay off my back. WAY off it!

I hpe this is clear enough? If you have any rational reason at all for why I may not post my thoughts in discussions with others, wheras you apparently may, then I would like to hear it. If not - and that would apply here - you mind yours and let me mind mine.

Are we clear on this?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Exactly, Jon.

Hutchinson was very obviously the man Lewis described wearing the wideawake hat. To conclude otherwise would be to accept that an incredibly unlikely “coincidence” occurred, or that were two separate men standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court waiting for someone to emerge from it at the same time on the same night.

Right Ben, but I still maintain a similar unlikely coincidence, as stated earlier:

"That there could be two 'well-dressed' men on the same street corner at the same time heading in the same direction, each with a 'hatless' woman, is beyond coincidence,..."

"Respectably dressed", or "dressed like a gentleman", "respectable appearance, walked very sharp", are their words not mine, but you choose to discount these people as witnesses with no tangible reason.
(Maybe 'parroting' and maybe Hutch being 'too observant', are not tangible reasons, this is subjective reasoning).

Would I be close in thinking that you insist on rejecting their statements in part because it will lead you down a path you refuse to go?

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

“It was the same day!”

Exactly, Jon.

Hutchinson was very obviously the man Lewis described wearing the wideawake hat. To conclude otherwise would be to accept that an incredibly unlikely “coincidence” occurred, or that were two separate men standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court waiting for someone to emerge from it at the same time on the same night. This obvious non-coincidence tells us two things:

1) Neither Hutchinson nor Lewis confused the time or date (because they support each other).

2) That particular aspect of Hutchinson’s account was both truthful and accurate, regardless of whether or not the bulk of it was fabrication.

People occasionally try to play down this obvious link between Hutchinson and Lewis by claiming that Hutchinson and the wideawake were stationed at different locations, that Lewis must have been mistaken, or that she was telling “porkies”. I find these excuses vastly implausible, and have to wonder why people feel the need to offer such stiff resistance to the astoundingly obvious. The press sketch of Hutchinson, depicting him as not tall, stout, and wearing a wideawake hat, is unsurprisingly very similar to Lewis’ description of her loitering man.

Dew offered his own personal speculations only, and if there was anything of evidential value to bolster them, he would obviously have provided it. Instead he just appeals to his readers to agree with his musings! If Dew found anything difficult to reconcile with Hutchinson’s account, it was undoubtedly his belief that Kelly was killed before the alleged Astrakhan encounter. According to Dew, therefore, Kelly could not have emerged from the court after she was murdered. There is certainly no evidence that he was ever in a position to rule out the obvious link between Hutchinson and Lewis’ wideawake man.

Hi Fisherman,

Jon was simply seeking confirmation that you weren’t accusing Lewis of date-disorienting. There’s really no need for you to recite your "confused date" Hutchinson theory all over again.

Ben

[Wickerman]

....I´m sorry, Jon, but I don´t understand what you are saying here? I don´t think that Sarah Lewis mistook the day, not at all.

Ok Fisherman, then it's clearly my mistake, it was me who 'confused' something :-)
Sorry about that.

The one person I feel may have done so is George Hutchinson.

Thats what I thought.
Ok, we're clear.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"Fisherman.
Every so often you make a comment that Sarah Lewis mistook the day."

I´m sorry, Jon, but I don´t understand what you are saying here? I don´t think that Sarah Lewis mistook the day, not at all. The one person I feel may have done so is George Hutchinson.

Sarah Lewis could have her story corroborated by the Keylers, and since she was detained by the police on the Friday, there really is no possibility that she would have mistaken the day. That´s quite obvious.

"Sometime between 2:00 & 2:30 am on Friday (9th) morning she saw Hutch in Dorset St. Sometime before the end of this same day she gave her statement to police (dated 9th) that she saw the loiterer in Dorset St."

I would say that if we speak of somewhere inbetween 2 AM and 3 AM, then I agree totally with the timing. But I do not agree that she must have seen Hutchinson! If indeed she did see a man outside Crossinghams, then my guess is that was not Hutchinson. I have outlined why numerous times.

Walter Dew was of the meaning that he could see no other explanation to the Hutchinson enigma than a mistaken day on his behalf. The only thing I can make of that is that Dew had gone over all he knew about the case, and come to the conclusion that there was something incorporated in Hutchinsons story that was unreconcilable with him having been in place on Friday morning. We are thus not speaking of Dew not accepting astrakhan man as real, or something like that. We are instead speaking of him finding one ore more details in Hutchinsons story impossible to fit in with a Friday morning vigil on his behalf.
What this detail or these details were, we cannot know for sure. But we DO know that Hutchinson speaks of a scenario where astrakhan man wears his clothing open in spite of a very wet, cold and blustery night. We DO know that he says that he himself walked the streets all night after having left his vigil - in spite of a very wet, cold and blustery night. We DO know that Hutchinson said that he only saw a lodger and a PC during his vigil, whereas he MUST have seen Lewis - but this he did not mention. We DO know that Lewis claimed that a young couple walked "up the court" - but Hutchinson does not mention them either. He is quite adamant that two people, and two people only, was what he saw in Dorset Street between 2.15 and 3 AM, approximately. We DO know that he claimed to have gone "to the court" and "stood there" for 45 minutes, whereas the so called loiterer reportedly stood not at the court, but instead on the other side of the street, at Crossinghams.

We therefore have a number of details in Hutchinson´s testimony that all point AWAY from him having been in Dorset Street on Friday morning, and not a single one that actually puts him there, but for his own giving the time as that morning. To find something that seemingly further corroborates him, we have to turn to ANOTHER testimony, that of Sarah Lewis - but there are very good reasons to question her testimony, just like Paul Begg says in his book. He points out that it is inadmissible, and I concur with that.

We must also note here that Walter Dew took part of the investigation into the Ripper killings. arguably, he knew much more about it than you and me do. But at any rate, he would have known what was said at the inquest, and thus he would also have known that Sarah Lewis had said that there was a man standing outside Crossinghams at around 2.30 that morning, intently staring up Miller´s court as if waiting for somebody to come out. This would have been right there, before Walter Dew´s eyes, just as it is there before ours. And STILL, Dew opted for saying that Hutchinson MUST have been mistaken! If Dew is correct, then there must be something in Hutchinson´s story, either in the police report, in the version in the papers or in the interrogation performed by Abberline or in any subsequent sharing of information on Hutchinsons behalf, that was clear enough for Dew to make the call that Lewis´ so called loiterer and Hutchinson COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SAME MAN!
There are further levels in all of this, one of them being that there is a fair chance that Dew did not put any stock at all in Lewis´story for the same reason that I don´t, but at any rate he quite obviously added more weight to the detail or details he thought ruled out Hutchinson´s presence in Dorset Street on Friday morning, than he did to the very tantalizing suggestion that Lewis had seen him there.

Thing is, Jon, if Sarah Lewis had NOT spoken of a man outside Crossinghams, my feeling is that nobody would speak up for her at all, since her testimony would be totally uncontroversial and anything but tantalizing if that was the case. I think everybody would have recommended dropping her in such a case, due to her changing her testimony totally in so many aspects. But once it became apparent that she offered a sighting that seemingly corroborated Hutchinson´s story, no qualms are entertained about her veracity by a number of Ripperlogists. In fact, my mere suggesting that she may have been telling porkies have been met - as you have seen - with much hostility and claims that I am heartless and unsensitive, something I think is as ridiculous as it is untrue.

And there you are, Jon - Sarah Lewis is totally in the clear when it comes to the dates. She was in Dorset Street on Friday morning, just like she said. Another person who said the same thing was NOT, however, if I am right. And that casts a whole new light over this all, I think.

I hope you can see where I am coming from now! And I do hope that I have not mistakenly written at some stage that Lewis would have been out on the days. She emphatically wasn´t!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Fisherman.
Every so often you make a comment that Sarah Lewis mistook the day.

She mistook (confused?) the day she saw this loiterer (Hutch?)?

It was the same day!

Sometime between 2:00 & 2:30 am on Friday (9th) morning she saw Hutch in Dorset St. Sometime before the end of this same day she gave her statement to police (dated 9th) that she saw the loiterer in Dorset St.

How could she confuse what happend this morning with another day?
This is much the same argument that some suggest for Caroline Maxwell, and she only saw Kelly 3 hrs before she heard Kelly had been murdered.
In her case it appears to me to be a case of mistaken identity, but with Lewis there was no identity given.

I guess it's an argument I don't understand.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m very optimistic at the prospect of a friendly impasse here."

If you mean that you expect me to disagree with you in every instance here, you SHOULD be EXTREMELY optimistic. You have every reason in the world to be so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“this preconception of yours has stood in the way of a better understanding of what happened far too long.”

No, the only thing it’s “standing in the way of” is your fascinating new theories on honestly-mistaken, date-discombobulating Hutchinson and lying Lewis, Fisherman. My suspicion, I’m afraid, is that they will remain a perpetual obstacle in this regard.

It appears you reneged on your promise.

You threatened that you would only “go on repeating” your earlier arguments if I continue being “disrespectful” or depicting you as retarded. Now despite being fully confident that neither of these accusations was fair or accurate (and if they were, all you needed to do was ignore me or put me on “ignore”), I nonetheless took care to make my recent post appear even-tempered and respectful, whilst at the same time explaining the reasons for my frustration. But what was your response to this? Yep, just more long-winded repetition of previous arguments. So really, your intention was to “go on repeating” all along whatever happens. In which case, I’m afraid my incentive for acceding to your request to refine my criticisms of your ideas might have to disappear out of the window.

Unless, of course, we give this one more shot:

“If you treat my suggestions rationally and refrain from vomiting over them and calling them very unflattering names, then I see no reason why we could not agree to disagree in a very civil manner.”

Alright, I’ll hold you to this. The remainder of my post will contain no “vomiting” and no “unflattering names”, nor will it be disrespectful. The end of the post will signal that "agreeing to disagree" moment.

Sarah Lewis described her loitering man as having stood against the lodging house. This location also qualifies as being outside the entrance to Miller’s Court because Dorset Street itself was very narrow, as we discussed in very extensive detail on a thread that I will provide a link to for everyone’s perusal once we’ve agreed to disagree here. If anyone wishes to oppose this, and continue arguing that Sarah Lewis was mistaken as to her impression of the loiterer, it would mean positing the existence of two loiterers with a preoccupation with Miller’s Court, and that when Lewis only thought one of them was watching and waiting for someone to come out, the other one actually was. I find this extremely implausible, personally.

The chances of Lewis mistaking her impression are demonstrably very slim, because it coincided so neatly with Hutchinson’s identical reason for being there, as related to the police.

You’re mileage may vary, however, and you’re entitled to an opposing view.

But here it is – our agreeing to disagree moment.

And here, as promised, is the original discussion, which as you would expect, is practically identical to this one:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=166205&highlight=craning#post166205

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=166606&highlight=craning#post166606

I’m very optimistic at the prospect of a friendly impasse here.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Just don’t keep repeating previously challenged arguments, Fisherman. That's all. "

You have my answer to that by now, Ben. If you treat my suggestions rationally and refrain from vomiting over them and calling them very unflattering names, then I see no reason why we could not agree to disagree in a very civil manner.
As for not bringing things up again, you of course realize that you have brought up your thought that Huchinson may have been a liar and a killer thousands of times on these threads. You have done so when you have made the call that the discussion would benefit from the information you have to offer. I of course reserve myself that same right. Well, not to assert that Hutch was a mad killer, but a good deal of other things.
It works with almost every other poster out here, so I fail to see why it would not work with you.

"All you’re doing now is bombarding multiple threads with the same Lying Lewis dogma that everyone else has thoroughly rejected."

But that is not true, Ben. Very FEW posters have commented as such to begin with, and there are those who think I am making a fair and useful argument. Moreover, when did it become forbidden to stay true to your beliefs even if others don´t? A majority of people do not think Hutchinson was the killer, but that does not stop you from arguing so, does it?

"I have not, at any stage in this debate, made any attack on your character. I have been intemperately critical of your suggestions, yes."

Let´s face it, Ben - it is only so subtle to say "This is an idea that could only have been concocted by a complete idiot". It says something about not only the idea, but also of it´s originator.

"This was not the case when you first advanced them – I simply disagreed, but then long after you must have realised that it was not receiving any support, you’re still insisting upon it in a very vocal and incessant fashion, and this is what gets people’s backs up."

You have repeated your Hutch-the-killer thesis a hundredfold more times than I have claimed my belief that Lewis may well have lied and that Hutch may have been wrong on the days.
But you don´t hear me calling your ideas "Nauseating, rotten, filthy, heartless vomit that only a brainless originator could have taken in his stinking mouth", do you? No, I persistently say that I don´t think your take on Hutch is a very good one, but that´s it.

What way do you prefer to debate in? By loosing your patience and temper and start conthriving up unproportionate and insulting names for viable suggestions or by keeping a cool head?

" It is unrealistic in the extreme to infer that the two were unrelated, in my opinion."

THAT´S okay. As long as you stay away from the more, shall we say, colourful descriptions of my stance, it´s all fine. And you should be equally fine with my take on things - that this preconception of yours has stood in the way of a better understanding of what happened far too long.

"There’s that repetition/stamina war approach to debating again. So the more “uncivil” you consider people to be, the more you will “go on” posting?"

Not necessarily. But I will not let my way of thinking and my suggestions be smeared without replying and pointing out that there is no reason to do so. And that is not a "stamina war" in which I have the initiative. It is my counterpart that will have to accept that there is a terminology for debating and there is another one for drunken pub brawls, and act upon it.

"There is an extremely remote possibility that Lewis was mistaken as to her impression of the wideawake man’s reason for loitering"

No. With respect, no. Please accept that Lewis is not on record anywhere explaining exactly what it was that lead her to believe that her man waited for someone to exit Miller´s court. The only bit we have is the one I presented earlier, where it appears that an intent stare was the underlying factor at hand, nothing else. And that is not in any way something that should lead us to conclude that Lewis had any means of being even remotley certain about being correct in her assessment. To say that there is only an "extremely remote possibility" that she was mistaken is totally disproportionate. If we had known the factors involved, and if there had been a universally non-misunderstandable manner of looking when waiting for somebody to come out of a court, then we may have tried to assess to what extent she would be correct, but as it stands we cannot even come close to any viable guess about it. She may have been correct and she may have been terribly, terribly wrong.

"In which case, Fisherman, with sincere respect, I disagree with your views very strongly and consider it very unlikely that any further “explanations” will make me change my mind."

Is that to say that you reserve yourself the right to move away from sense and respect for our counterpart and start throwing **** in proportions that are totally and utterly untenable and ridiculous?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Just don’t keep repeating previously challenged arguments, Fisherman. That's all. It was a perfectly simple request, but one that you appear inexplicably unwilling to adhere to. All you’re doing now is bombarding multiple threads with the same Lying Lewis dogma that everyone else has thoroughly rejected. We most assuredly can “tell what the police thought about it” because the journalists of the Echo, who were in direct communication with the police, reported that a Birmingham suspect resembled a “gentlemanly” description from the inquest. This can only be a reference to Sarah Lewis, and reassures us that the police took her evidence seriously a week after it emerged at the inquest.

They had no problems with the “veracity of the story”.

I have not, at any stage in this debate, made any attack on your character. I have been intemperately critical of your suggestions, yes. This was not the case when you first advanced them – I simply disagreed, but then long after you must have realised that it was not receiving any support, you’re still insisting upon it in a very vocal and incessant fashion, and this is what gets people’s backs up.

It is very clear, in my opinion, that Lewis’ impression of the loiterer’s behaviour was the correct one because, as Frank has pointed out, it coincides very neatly with Hutchinson’s account of what he did at the very location, time and date as Lewis’ loiterer. It is unrealistic in the extreme to infer that the two were unrelated, in my opinion.

“That is uncivil and it means that I will go on explaining to you and any other reader how I - quite legitimately - look on things.”

There’s that repetition/stamina war approach to debating again. So the more “uncivil” you consider people to be, the more you will “go on” posting? I’m not sure what this hopes to achieve. Seems rather counter-intuitive and unnecessary to me, but it’s your call. I don’t need any more “explanations”, thank you. I fully understand your position on this subject because you “explained” it at length on a previous thread. I just happen to disagree with it very strongly, and wonder why you feel the need to dredge up the issue again.

“Equally potentially” makes no sense. There is an extremely remote possibility that Lewis was mistaken as to her impression of the wideawake man’s reason for loitering, but once we factor in Hutchinson’s identical reason for being there at that time, that possibility is drastically reduced to the point of being nullified altogether. It also clinches the identification of Hutchinson as the wideawake loiterer beyond any reasonable doubt, in my view.

“But as long as any of us moves away from sense and respect for our counterpart and start throwing **** in proportions that are totally and utterly untenable and ridiculous, I can only say for my own part that I WILL keep giving my view repeatedly”

In which case, Fisherman, with sincere respect, I disagree with your views very strongly and consider it very unlikely that any further “explanations” will make me change my mind. I also think that any further repetition will be counter-productive.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

What she said at the inquest, still fits what Hutchinson told. That’s what counts. We needn’t concern ourselves with the question of how she got the impression or whether it was the right impression or not.

Absolutely, Frank.

And as you've pointed out, the fact that the two accounts fit is very unlikely to be accidental.

All the best,
Ben