Who did Sarah See?

[Fisherman]

Not very likely, I think, Sally. I would have expected some sort of distinction languagewise if this was the case, but Lewis only speaks of "the court". And I don´t see why a lodging house inside New Court - if htere was a such - would have meant that this was where the couple was headed?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fisherman - I know what the context is, thanks.

I thought there was a lodging house at the back of New Court, a bit further up the street? Perhaps this is where the confusion came from. Mixed up courts?

[Fisherman]

I know that it was a street, Sally. But how do you account for the couple with the boozed-up lady being described as "walking up the court" otherwise? Especially since Lewis said that "the court was empty"?

Please take in the whole context before making remarks like this one, Sally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Dorset Street was a street, Fisherman. Not a court. I imagine this is why it was called Dorset Street, and not Dorset Court.

Not New Court then?

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon!

Wow.

This is enough to make anybody´s head spin.

Let´s take a look at it, beginning from the Daily News excerpt from the 12:th:

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one."

This sounds very conclusive: In the doorway of the deceased´s house - there can only be one interpretation of this, and that would be the archway leading into the court. So it seems that Lewis is telling us that she saw her loiterer standing inside that archway.

But let´s move on a bit, and see what happens if we keep reading that article! Here´s what happens when we add the following sentence:

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

So Lewis also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court. But have we not heard of that couple before? Would that not be the couple Lewis spoke of at the inquest too:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

So what have we got here? It seems there was an almighty traffic inside that court! There was the loiterer, standing in the archway, and there was the couple with the intoxicated woman passing up the court as Lewis stood there outside the Keylers. Quite a busy evening inside Millers Court, by the looks of things!

Or? Let´s expand the phrasing from the inquest and think things over again:

"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."

Oh - magic! The couple passing UP the court was not IN the court. Nobody was.
How is this possible? Well, my guess would be that Lewis refers to both Dorset Street AND Miller´s Court as being courts, the former a court leading off Commercial Street and the latter a ditto leading off Dorset Street. It´s all very confusing, but the fact of the matter is that Lewis does assure us that the court was empty, and the court she is speaking of in that case must reasonably be the one she ultimately ends up in: Millers Court.

Now, let´s once more turn back to the phrasing about the loiterer: "In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."

Was he really standing in the archway? Well, it seemingly says so, but think again. Lewis passed through that archway herself. Why does she not say that she passed a man standing there, instead of just claiming that she saw him. She must have rubbed hips with him, more or less, if this was where he was standing. And if it was, and if she did come in that close a contact with him, why would she be utterly unable to say one single thing about him in the police report? It makes no sense at all.
What I suggest is that Lewis actually tells us not that the loiterer was standing in the doorway, but that she herself was there. I think the sentence should read "as I reached the doorway of Miller´s Court, and stepped into it, I saw this man standing out in the street, seemingly looking my way". "In the doorway" points out to us that this was how far Lewis had reached before she saw the man. And that would also very much account for her not noticing any of his features - she only got a glimpse of him as she turned into the court. He would therefore arguably not have been standing in the middle of the street, where Lewis would have seen him clearly as she went down Dorset Street, but instead he would have been standing in the darkness of the doorway of Crossingham´s, thus concealed from her view for the longest time. And this exact thing - the man´s concealed position - is what we are served in her pre-inquest statement: "... a man standing over AGAINST the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."
That man would also have been standing "on the pavement", as stated in the Irish Times - that is, the pavement opposite from the Miller´s Court archway, and the excerpt from the Echo, "She saw a man at the entrance to the court" should arguably be read in the way I have already suggested: Lewis went down the street, arrived at the entrance to the court, and AT THAT ENTRANCE, she found herself in a position from where she could see a man standing outside Crossingham´s.

Analogically, when you write, quoting from the inquest and adding an "IN":
"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite IN the court in Dorset St. standing alone by the lodging house"

... you confirm something that we should perhaps not confirm at all. Take that "IN" away again, and work from my suggestions here, and you will find that this seemingly exactly corroborates what I speak of: Lewis did NOT see the man as she walked down Dorset Street, something that has often been suggested, and something that would have opened up for her having had a significant amount of time at her disposal to take in the man´s presence. Instead it would seem that she went down Dorset Street without seeing that man at all - until the split second she turned into the archway leading into Miller´s Court. At THAT stage - but not before - she suddenly caught a glimpse of her loiterer.
And this of course would explain why Sarah Lewis was not able to say anything at all about the man´s appearance as she reported about it to the police! A dark street, a man sunk into the gloomy doorway of a dosshouse, a sudden glance as she turned into the archway - it all makes sense.
What does NOT make sense is that she on second thoughts was able to expand this split second sighting into a man who was on the short side, who was stout, who carried a black wideawake hat, and who was intently watching the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

Sarah Lewis saw that man for the briefest of moments only, quite possibly by throwing a quick glance over her own left shoulder. That is what the evidence tells us.
And Sarah Lewis was telling porkies at the inquest.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

But there wasn't a lodging house in the court.

I think there's a confusion of terminology through Lewis's testimony, the lodging-house IN the Court merely refers to No. 13.

[Lechmere]

But there wasn't a lodging house in the court.

[Wickerman]

With respect to the actual location of the Dorset St. loiterer, Sarah Lewis states:
(Newspaper quotes)

" I saw a man standing on the pavement."
Irish Times, Nov. 13.

"She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone."
Echo, Nov. 12.

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one."
Daily News, Nov. 12.

"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."
Daily Telegraph, Nov. 13.


I offer the newspaper quotes first because I think knowing how Lewis described the location to the press, actually AT Millers Court, and NOT over the road at Crossinghams, where we have always assumed he stood.

So, in Lewis's pre-inquest statement we read:
"....when I came up the court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."

She was "up the court", not in Dorset St.

Lewis means "over against" No. 13, Kelly's door, not the lodging house across the street.

"On the opposite side" meant opposite to her address, No. 13 was opposite to No. 2 where the Keylers/Gallaghers lived.

This loiterer (Hutch?) was standing outside Kelly's door opposite to the Keylers.

Lewis says mutch the same in her Inquest testimony:
"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite IN the court in Dorset St. standing alone by the lodging house"

She was IN the court when she saw the man, he was opposite "in" the court. I inserted a missing IN in red which I think should have been in the statement but is missing.

This loiterer was not standing outside Crossinghams in Dorset St., rather he was standing outside No. 13 in Millers Court, in Dorset St.

Thoughts?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Frank, what do you think about this American report. It places Hutch AT the end of the court, not across the road.

"After the couple entered the house Hutchinson heard sounds of merriment in the girl's room and remained at the entrance to the court for fully three quarters of an hour. About 3 o'clock the sounds ceased and he walked into the court, but finding that the light in the room had been extinguished he went home."
Newark Daily Advocate, Nov. 14th, 1888.

Interesting?

Regards, Jon S.

[FrankO]

There's no indication Hutchinson crossed the street to stand at Crossingham's to look up the court, he says "I stood there", meaning at the Court, on the north side of the street. At least there is no clear indication of him leaving to stand across the road. Thats an assumption that modern researchers have made, maybe erroneously.

I don’t agree with you here, Jon. ‘I went to the Court’ just isn’t specific enough to draw any conclusions as to the precise spot he occupied close to the entrance of the court.

He could have stood right next to the entrance, from time to time throwing a glance into the arched entrance; he could have stood a few feet away from the entrance in such a way that he was able to look up the court, or he could have stood a number of yards away from the entrance, i.e. at the opposite side of the street, where he could lean against a wall and do the exact same thing. That would all be in line with his statement.

Another thing, is that, when Hutchinson followed the couple across Commercial Street from the Queen’s Head Pub, I have no doubt that he stood at the south side corner of Dorset Street to watch the couple chat for about 3 minutes at the entrance to the court. So, for the assumption you make, he must have crossed Dorset Street from the south end to the north end to begin with and there’s no indication that he did that either.

All the best,
Frank

[Wickerman]

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

Consciensiously Frank, I must withdraw that agreement.

When you said:

Lewis saw a man looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out, which is exactly what Hutchinson stated he did....

Thats not actually what Hutchinson said, risking sounding pedantic here but his words were:

"I then went to the Court to see if I could see them but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out, they did not so I went away"

There's no indication Hutchinson crossed the street to stand at Crossingham's to look up the court, he says "I stood there", meaning at the Court, on the north side of the street. At least there is no clear indication of him leaving to stand across the road. Thats an assumption that modern researchers have made, maybe erroneously.

Whether the Bethnal Green Man and Astrachan are the same individual pretty much rests on this loiterer being Hutchinson. Such an identification is not clearly established.

Regards, Jon S.

[babybird67]

You miss the point, Lechmere.

It is clear that Lewis was asked about her woman's apparel and headgear because she described it in the police statement.

Hutchinson clearly wasn't asked about his woman's apparel and headgear, or else he would have described it in the police statement.

This is only reasonable and logical.

Precisely, Benz. One would have to ask WHY the police, if they did ask these questions, neglected to record the extremely important answers to them in the offical statement itself. One would imagine they were extremely important aspects of the witness description, wouldn't one?

Beebs x

[Ben]

You miss the point, Lechmere.

It is clear that Lewis was asked about her woman's apparel and headgear because she described it in the police statement.

Hutchinson clearly wasn't asked about his woman's apparel and headgear, or else he would have described it in the police statement.

This is only reasonable and logical.

[The Good Michael]

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...

Indeed, it is often necessary, and there should be kind of a standard set of questions regarding descriptions. Maybe Stewart would know something of that?

Mike

[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.