Who did Sarah See?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not if it wasn't true, Fleets.

Lewis was saying that she noticed the man when she reached the court, which is perfectly understandable in light of her earlier statement that she was frightened by the man with the black bag she had passed in Commercial Street a minute or two earlier. If she kept glancing over her shoulder and perhaps quickening her pace on account of her jitters at the sight of this individual, it wouldn't be at all surprising if she did not pay attention to the people in Dorset Street until she got to a "safer" position.

All the best,
Ben

Seems you and I reason in differing fashions, Ben.

I would say that someone frightened would be taking in all around them. It would be sensible to scan the streets to find a potential saviour.

I can't believe she doesn't see these people until she is on top of the loiterer. Not a chance, well, it's unlikely.

"When I went into the court". She is saying she is in the court: she has entered the court. And then describes what she sees. She is not saying: "on approaching the court" or "just as I was about to go into the court". "Went" in sub standard grammar means gone/entered.

What she sees once inside the court is open to interpretation.

For your theory to work, she enters the court and then turns round to see the loiterer and takes a step back to peer down the road.

[Ben]

For your theory to work

I'm afraid it's not just my theory, Fleets, but what actually happened according to Lewis' evidence. In her police statement, she specified that the man was standing against the lodging house, which was most assuredly not in Miller's Court. Her inquest testimony does not contradict this, but merely includes the detail that she noticed the man from the vantage point of the court itself. It wouldn't have been a case, necessarily, of not seeing them as she walked fearfully from Ringers' corner to the Miller's Court entrance, but rather not noticing them, especially in the darkened conditions.

All the best,
Ben

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm afraid it's not just my theory, Fleets, but what actually happened according to Lewis' evidence. In her police statement, she specified that the man was standing against the lodging house, which was most assuredly not in Miller's Court. Her inquest testimony does not contradict this, but merely includes the detail that she noticed the man from the vantage point of the court itself. It wouldn't have been a case, necessarily, of not seeing them as she walked fearfully from Ringers' corner to the Miller's Court entrance, but rather not noticing them, especially in the darkened conditions.

All the best,
Ben

"Opposite the lodging house"?

Also, that comma is tantalising. "When I went into the court, opposite the lodging house, I saw....." That would make it conclusive.

What about this, Ben. "When I went into the court...." Is this not the same as saying: "I went into the court...."? This would set the scene for what she sees once she's in the court. My reading of her statement is that she's in the thing, she's stepped away from Dorset Street. So, the loiterer may just be at the archway as suggested by Wickerman.

[Lechmere]

The lodging house in question - a plain front with no recess to hide in.

[Sally]

Lechmere

Great plan - where'd that come from?

Very nice

But then, looking at the elevation, there's nowhere to shelter, is there? Why would somebody be standing there in the rain (presumably)? I think I must have imagined a recessed doorway, but no.

[Lechmere]

Board of Works plans - I put quite a few up on the East End photos thread a short while back

[Ben]

But Fleets, the police statement is quite specific that the loitering man in question was standing against the lodging house - which is on the other side of the admittedly narrow street.

Regarding the front of Crossingham's, I wonder if anyone can identify the building with the external porch area at the end of the street on the right hand side of this photo:

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=11242&d=1297187668

It must be very near Crossingham's.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

This is next door but one to Crossinghams (the Crossinghams opposite Miller's Court) in the direction of the City (i.e. west if it). No porch.

[Wickerman]

I'd have to agree with Fish here.

It is clear that the couple only "passed along" (i.e. along Dorset Street).

Not at all Ben, perhaps this explains the scene a little clearer.

"...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."
Daily News, 13 Nov.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

That's just the Daily News, though, Jon.

Few, if any other press reports stated that the couple went up the court.

I'm afraid I regard it as extremely obvious that they didn't.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. Thanks for that, Lechmere.

[Wickerman]

Hi Fisherman.
Thankyou for those few gracious words you threw my way, on another thread.

Not to me, though; if there HAD been a couple walking down the archway to the court - then why are they not in Sarah Lewis´police report?

Well, if you notice in her pre-inquest statement, just after referring to the man in Dorset St. we have ["talking to a female' - deleted].
This may be where she mentioned this other couple, that they were talking, except that the officer had briefly confused the 'well-dressed man' with the 'Loiterer', so he scratched that out.
Therefore, Lewis must have mentioned this couple, as we read in the press coverage.
This exchange was preserved in the Daily Telegraph, Nov. 13, where the questions was asked about the 'well-dressed man' & woman:

"Were the man and woman quarrelling ? - No; they were talking."

So Lewis had mentioned this other couple to the police, but in what context is unknown.

Best regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

I agree, Jon - the deleted "talking to a female" was undoubtedly the product of the officer confusing the loiterer with the Bethnal Green man and his female companion.

Sarah Lewis clearly spoke of two separate couples that night. The black bag man and accompanying woman standing talking outside Ringers' were clearly unrelated to the other couple she spotted in Dorset Street who "passed along". Evidently, not one of the four was either Kelly or her murderer.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis clearly spoke of two separate couples that night. The black bag man and accompanying woman standing talking outside Ringers' were clearly unrelated to the other couple she spotted in Dorset Street who "passed along". Evidently, not one of the four was either Kelly or her murderer.

Hi Ben.
Yes, and for the longest time I saw this sequence the same way as you.
What I had noticed though was that when we take all Lewis's statements together it seems that her views are from two different prespectives.

First, she passed the Well-dressed man & woman in front of the Britannia, and proceeds down Dorset St., so clearly Lewis is ahead of them.

And, one of the women had no hat (Kelly was known by her not wearing a hat).
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, therefore this Bethnal Green man & Mr Astrachan were one and the same.

Not forgetting the observation by Mrs Kennedy/Lewis tends to clinch the identification.
"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."

However, when Lewis describes the loiterer outside Millers Court, she is clearly behind the couple, because Hutch is obviously watching this same couple who had entered Millers Court.
(As Hutch is behind the couple, and therefore they have already entered the Court/passage, how can Lewis be observing all this if she is already inside the Keylers residence, therefore something is missing.

[Note: if you accept that Hutch & the Loiterer are the same man, then you are obligated to accept this press report:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Because, if Hutch is stood watching up the court, and Lewis claims to have seen a man with a 'hatless' woman pass up the court/passage, then this couple must be the same as those she left standing outside the Britannia]

Lewis must have been somewhere that she had not mentioned, or no court-recorder or pressman had bothered to mention.
There was McCarthy's shop still open at the corner of the court/passage (it closed about 3:00 am). Perhaps Lewis had stepped inside for a moment.

And, in support of this we have the press statement by Mrs McCarthy that 'one of her customers had remarked about seeing this funny man up the court early this morning' (Friday).

That report ties up a loose end, it is not proof by any means but this coincidence does offer the possibility that this customer (not tennent nor resident), was Sarah Lewis, and that here we might have the 'time-delay' required in her story that changes her perspective, from initially being ahead of the couple, to suddenly being behind them and associated with Hutch.

It's tenuous, but it fits, and provides a solution to a problem.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

"think Fisherman's explanation is genius."

Wow - much obliged, Mac!

"But, I'm going to go with the majority of Wickerman's explanantion.
Reason due to one simple explanation: "when I went into the court". To me, she is setting the scene for what she sees in the passage/court."

Have a look at what the different papers say, Mac. It´s to the effect that Lewis offers the information that she did not see the loiterer until the moment she entered the archway. That is what she is talking about when she says "when I went into the court". Apparently, she had not seen the loiterer as she walked down the street, meaning that he was either physically obscured (by standing in a doorway, for example) or hidden in the dark. My own guess is that the former applies.

When we have gotten this far, it would be a very strange thing if Lewis suddenly observed a couple walking further down the passage - it was but a short such, and reasonably she would have seen them enter the passage before, but this is not what she says - and even stranger if she, after having walked down the twenty foot passage, found that the couple was gone and the court empty.

I´m with Ben here. That couple never entered Miller´s court, as far as I´m concerned.

One thing I want to pont to, though, is that those who find Sarah Lewis inquest testimony strange - like, say, me - may point to our laundress making her observation of the man outside Crossingham´s in a VERY short time! This would seem to point away from any generous possibilities to take in and interpret the man as being waiting for someone to come out from the court - however THAT looks.
Incidentally, I also thinks it points away from naming the man a "loiterer". That loitering may have been observed for less than a second, byt the looks of things, and judging by that (and a questionable testimony as such) does not provide much loitering. I find that term in itself makes it harder to accept that the man and Hutchinson were not one and the same. It seemingly establishes a lengthy period of time during which the man had the court under surveillance, and all we have is what may amount to less than a second.

Not sure if Ben´s with me on this, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"a plain front with no recess to hide in"

Hmm. Could there not have been the odd decimetre or two? Not that it matters, since Lewis is adamant about not seeing her guy until she turned the archway corner, but it would be nice to know exactly what applied. Even if it did not obscure the whole profile of the man, a small recess could help to make him harder to make out.

The best,
Fisherman