Who did Sarah See?

[Wickerman]

Hi Mike,

(Sorry to butt in, Abby)

The problem is that this scenario just doesn’t fit with what Lewis and Hutchinson stated:
• Hutchinson doesn’t say he preceded the couple. He says he followed them, and it’s clear from the account that he did that, and not preceded them.
• Lewis saw a man looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out, which is exactly what Hutchinson stated he did. He was waiting for someone to come out, which fits with the point above.

All the best,
Frank

Thankyou Frank.
You saved me the trouble of being another butinski..
I agree...

[The Good Michael]

I understand the timing thing of course, but is every word of Hutchinson's precise? Every little detail? Did he see a thick gold chain? Did he actually know astrakhan from other wool? Was the man surly-looking? If we can say, "Yes. All of Hutchinson's testimony is precise." Then we need go no further with Hutchinson and he is exhonerated. If we can say, "No." about anything, who chooses what is wrong, and why?

One more point: Kelly wore no hat and neither did the woman Lewis saw at nearly the same time with a similar man.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike!

I think it ought to be pointed out that much as the man with the bag wore an overcoat the first time Lewis saw him, she clearly says that when the two met again on the night Kelly died, he did NOT wear his overcoat, under which he - at least on occasion one - had worn a short jacket. And equally clearly, Astrakhan man DID wear an overcoat, a "long, dark" one. I think that discrepancy is a hard one to bridge.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman. Yes, that's one difference, but she didn't say whether or not he was carrying an overcoat, or if he had placed upon the hatless Kellyesque woman's shoulders before Lewis got to them.

Mike

[FrankO]

I understand the timing thing of course, but is every word of Hutchinson's precise? Every little detail? Did he see a thick gold chain? Did he actually know astrakhan from other wool? Was the man surly-looking?

What has been entrusted to paper (and has survived), Mike, is all we can go on, and that’s all I did. As soon as we start to deviate from what we have on paper, certainly when there are no pointers that support the deviation, we end up with explanations or scenarios that remain unconvincing.

As a side note, I agree with you that, regardless who, witnesses needn’t have told the (precise) truth and that, in Hutchinson’s case, the thing we might be the least uncertain about is that he actually stood where and when Lewis saw her man, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

Best,
Frank

[The Good Michael]

Frank,

Appreciate your comments. And I think deviation is more probable than not given the amount of alcohol and ne'er-do-wellness that certainly occured at those hours of the morning with witnesses and suspects alike. It's maybe impossible to judge deviation here.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"she didn't say whether or not he was carrying an overcoat, or if he had placed upon the hatless Kellyesque woman's shoulders before Lewis got to them"

That´s correct. He only says "He had no overcoat on." But since she had taken notice of the apparition of that overcoat, my hunch is that she would have recognized it on the woman´s shoulders. No sure thing, though!

the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

That´s correct. He only says "He had no overcoat on." But since she had taken notice of the apparition of that overcoat, my hunch is that she would have recognized it on the woman´s shoulders. No sure thing, though!

Maybe, but she couldn't even give a description of the waiting man. I don't know how observant she really was.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Nope. Nor do I. But "not very" would be a clever bet, methinks.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

It;s good to have reasoned debate and hash things out; brainstorm. This cannot happen if a belief is predicated in faith.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

Why would Lewis say that the woman was hatless and the man had no overcoat on? It's because she had already given a statement and was asked these questions by police. Her testimony at the inquest would have been an abbreviated form unless she was asked specific questions. She wasn't challenged, and neither was anyone else in this shortened version of an inquest.

Is this important? Maybe, because it means we don't know what questions the police asked her in order for her to have this prepared statement. My guess is they asked such questions as: What kind of hat was she wearing? and What kind of coat did he have on? Her answers obviously would have been that they weren't wearing either. Hatless solicitors were uncommon, as would have been coatless men at this time of year. In the questioning, she might not have been asked if either was carrying any clothing.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Sounds all reasonable to me, Mike. Mind you, there are those who believe that the police forgot to ask about things like clothing and such. I am not one of them, though!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Right Fish. Because there's no infornation, some folks consider it to not have happened. That's as bad as reading too much into something.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Lewis' references to the clothing and headgear of the people she saw that night constitutes evidence that she was questioned along these lines, as you have inferred. In her case, those questions were asked, which is why we have answers to them.

If there is to be any consistency to your logic, therefore, you will observe the total absence of any reference to Kelly's clothing in Hutchinson's account provides a telling indication that he wasn't asked about it, and certainly didn't offer any details of her clothing unprompted.

[Lechmere]

[Mr Ben
It also tells us the sorts of standard questions the police will have asked at the time - and as we know that nearly all the police material is missing and we have only a tiny fraction left to go on, it is plausible to 'join up the dots' and presume they asked more - that is no deviation from what we know about police procedure in 1888.