Who did Sarah See?

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"Lewis did see the couple pass up the court but I think Lewis was suggesting that there was no people IN the court up to no good.
(She is making the point that whoever they were, they went inside a house)."

Hmmm. The only way I can see my way through to this view is if Lewis watched the couple go up the archway from behind them. And is this was the case, she tells the story from behind too. She first speaks of seeing the loiterer standing against Crossingham´s the moment she turns the corner, then speaks of the couple and then says that there was noone in the court. The logical sequence would be to first mention the couple, then speak of the loiterer and then add that there was noone in the court AS SHE REACHED IT. My money is on the couple NOT going into Miller´s court as it stands.

"the loiterer was initially standing at the end of the passage, on the pavement (sidewalk) for 3/4 of an hour, then about 3:00am he walked up the court and stood outside Kelly's door for a moment, before leaving."

Ah, but now you are mistaking the loiterer for Hutchinson. And if we are to believe the Manchester Guardian, the sequence of events wa a different one:
"Hutchinson heard Kelly say she had lost her handkerchief, whereupon her companion took a red handkerchief from his pocket and gave it to the woman. They went into Miller's Court together, and some time afterwards Hutchinson also went up the court, stayed there a couple of minutes, and seeing no light in Kelly's room he returned to Dorset-street. He remained about the place three-quarters of an hour, and then went home."

Apparently, the walk up the court came soon after the couple had gone into Mary´s room!

At any rate, as I have explained, I think the loiterer was standing against the door of Crossingham´s, and NOT at the entrance to the court! That´s where Hutch stood, though, if I am right - but on the morning BEFORE.

"Was she looking at the 'couple' walking towards her up the passage (because she arrived first?)"

Nope. The court was empty. She said so.

"... and she therefore can describe Hutchinson's size & shape from his silouette (he's standing at the end of the passage with some light behind him)."

Why use the silhouette, when she must have walked right past him seconds before if he was standing at the entrance to the archway? In fact, it says IN the archway - but I think that referred to Lewis´position and not the loiterers.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Fisherman.
On another thread I suggested a first scenario that Lewis & Kennedy should be viewed as the same person.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=176286&postcount=290

A second scenario might also fit the available evidence that Lewis & Kennedy were related, if not full sisters then perhaps half-sisters, with either the same mother, or same father.
Leaving aside the Wednesday at 8 O'clock confrontation in Bethnal Green Road, in which they both appear to have had the same experience, and concentrate on their experience of Friday morning.

Lewis is quite certain that she had arrived at the Keylers by 2:30 am, as announced by the Spitalfields clock.

Kennedy is consistent that she entered Dorset St. "about 3:00 am".

Lewis noticed a man and a woman standing by the Britannia pub, she passed them by and walked on to Millers Court.

Kennedy noticed a man with a woman, and another poorly clad woman without headgear (Kelly?). She saw the first woman leave the man as she herself passed on down Dorset St. to Millers Court.

Lewis then noticed a man standing outside Millers Court, looking up the Court as a man & woman passed by (up the passage?).

Kennedy makes no mention of this incident.

Lewis arrived at the Keylers and slept in a chair, waking up about 3:30 am, and heard the clock strike. She was then awake until 4:00 when she heard a cry of "murder'.

Kennedy arrived at the Gallaghers and "did not retire immediately", but sat up, then about 3:30 - 4:00 am she heard a cry of "murder'.

The possibility exists that Lewis, who noticed the loiterer (Hutch?) arrived a full 30 minutes before Mrs Kennedy, who makes no mention of him.
Hutch by his own words heard the clock strike 3:00 am as he left Dorset St.

Actually, Kennedy consistently says "about" 3 O'clock when she entered Dorset St., so if the time was a little after 3 O'clock then Hutch had departed and possibly (after 45 mins of hanky-panky) Astrachan & Kelly were back out of the street, on the same corner outside the Britannia, where Kennedy claims:

"...at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before. "

So the question might be asked if Kelly ventured out again after her liason with Astrachan?
The other obvious question is, who was that woman who rejected the "well-dressed" man, and apparently walked off?

This scenario still allows a potential further 45 minutes for the poorly clad woman (Kelly) to hook up with someone else and return to No. 13.
The cry of "murder" is heard approx. 3:45, ample time for Kelly to meet someone else.

Apparently Mrs Kennedy had spoken to the police before the papers went to press on the 10th, the St. James Gazette reports:

"Mrs. Kennedy has been questioned by the police as to what she had heard during the night, and she has repeated substantially the above statement."

Supported by a curious report in the Times, Nov 12th.

"Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room."

Now its 3:30, and "a woman talking to two men"? (unless, if Lewis & Kennedy are identical, the meaning is, "she saw the same woman speak to two men, first Hutch then Astrachan?).
More than likely the Times account is the result of confused reporting.

However, if Lewis & Kennedy as separate women (sisters?), they may have arrived at differnt times, as their statements suggest?
Which then would add more questions to Kelly's movements that morning.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I think the Lewis/Kennedy comparison you’ve kindly provided above illustrates the validity of the suggestion that the account was plagiarized better than anything else. Obviously, the accounts of their movements on the Friday morning are far too similar for it to be credibly inferred that they originated from two women with genuine experiences. On the other hand, it is clear from the discrepancies between the two (Kennedy’s spotting Kelly versus Lewis not even knowing Kelly, for instance) that they were not authored by the same person. This leaves us with the observation made in the Star that a witness account had been parroted by a handful of other women – Kennedy among them

However, Garry has recently suggested that there may well have been a relationship between the two women – possibly sisters – and that they shared the Wednesday experience only. This would imply, as Garry suggests, that Mrs. Kennedy “may have exploited her relationship with Sarah in order to make money from journalists by passing herself off as the woman who stayed with the Keylers/Keelers on the night of Kelly's death.”

I consider this a viable proposal.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Sarah Lewis..

Had a sister, slightly older. She is listed in the 1871 Census, and thereafter disappears. I suspect this is for the usual reason - poor transcription on the part of the enumerator - rather than because she really did disappear. So it goes.

The Keylers may have been Keillers (and variants thereof) There were a handful of them in Whitechapel, probably the same family. They were Irish.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"Lewis is quite certain that she had arrived at the Keylers by 2:30 am, as announced by the Spitalfields clock."

She was certain at the inquest, yes. And she may have recalled looking at that clock. But the fact of the matter is that she said: "Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers" as the police spoke with her originally. No mentioning of any clock there! And once again a discrepancy inbetween report and inquest.

As for the rest of your points, yes, they can be read as you suggest. My own feeling, though, is that the women were one and the same. To think that two women made the same walk, met the same people, more or less, and ended up in one chair each, spending the night in them, listening to murder cries at the sam time, before that having met with the same bogey man two days earlier - no, I think they must have been one and the same.

Perhaps they were Siamese twins, though ...?

Anyhow, I will try and soak all of this up and give it some hard and long afterthought this evening. A pencil and a rough sketch of Dorset Street should facilitate things. After that, I hopefully will be able to further comment on it all in more detail.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Not one and the same, no.

Just one women who had copied another's account.

This explains the striking degree of similarity while acknowledging that two women were unlikely to have had such similar experiences on Friday morning.

Regards,
Ben

[claire]

Surely, if order to ascertain that no one (else) was in the court, one would have to be in it themselves? Hard to see for sure whether no one was in there from Dorset-street (which is what made it an attractive location for an illegal game of pitch n toss), given the length of the passage, the poor lighting, and the size and irregular shape of the court itself.

[Wickerman]

Surely, if order to ascertain that no one (else) was in the court, one would have to be in it themselves?

Absolutely, which is why I think there is an implied sequence in this particular press statement from the Daily Telegraph, 13th Nov.

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house..."
(Millers Court is opposite Crossinghams Lodginghouse).

"...I saw a man with a wideawake...[edit]... The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one..."
(The loiterer, Hutch, was standing outside the arch of Millers Court, on the pavement (sidewalk), in Dorset Street)

"... Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."
(A man & woman were walking further down the passage)

"...There was nobody in the court..."
(Lewis had walked down the passage to No. 2 and could see that no-one was in the court, therefore the man & woman must have entered one of the houses).

That seems straight forward to me.

Regards, Jon S.

[claire]

Me too.

[Fisherman]

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? If she was asked about who were present in Dorset Street that morning - and arguably she was - then why are these two people left out? Could she possibly have forgotten about them - and remembered the loiterer? It seems quite, quite odd to me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I'd have to agree with Fish here.

It is clear that the couple only "passed along" (i.e. along Dorset Street). The man with the wideawake was not in the Court itself (or else he can't have been "looking up" it), but in Dorset Street, and the couple were described as "further along" Dorset Street. Lewis statement that there was "nobody in the court" obviously meant that she hadn't followed anyone into it. The couple clearly had nothing to do with the murder, or else Lewis would most assuredly have been requested to view Kelly's body and attempt an identification with the female half of that couple.

All the best,
Ben

[Fleetwood Mac]

Absolutely, which is why I think there is an implied sequence in this particular press statement from the Daily Telegraph, 13th Nov.

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house..."
(Millers Court is opposite Crossinghams Lodginghouse).

"...I saw a man with a wideawake...[edit]... The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one..."
(The loiterer, Hutch, was standing outside the arch of Millers Court, on the pavement (sidewalk), in Dorset Street)

"... Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."
(A man & woman were walking further down the passage)

"...There was nobody in the court..."
(Lewis had walked down the passage to No. 2 and could see that no-one was in the court, therefore the man & woman must have entered one of the houses).

That seems straight forward to me.

Regards, Jon S.

What a fascinating discussion, think Fisherman's explanation is genius.

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. If these people were along Dorset Street, I would expect her to say: "as I walked along Dorset Street....", thereby setting the scene for that which she sees in Dorset Street. Surely she would have seen these people before she went 'into' the court, and would have said she saw them as she walked along Dorset Street. The fact she clearly states she sees them as she enters the court, suggests they must have been in the passage/court.

One possible explanation is that she sees all 3 in the passage, walks past them and, consequently, sees no one in the court itself.

Or...

Something is missing, i.e. it is not the full statement. Perhaps she sees the loiterer in the archway, the couple further on up the court....and there is a bit missing explaining why by the time she gets to the court there is no one in the court.

[Ben]

The fact she clearly states she sees them as she enters the court, suggests they must have been in the passage/court.

No, Fleets.

That only holds true if Lewis was incapable of noticing someone in Dorset Street as she entered the court. Her own location at the entrance to the court says nothing about the whereabouts of the three individuals she mentioned. It would simply mean that she looked out at Dorset Street from the court entrance. "Further on" most emphatically means further down Dorset Street and not further down the court passage. Having them all crammed into the narrow passage doesn't bear scrutiny; it would mean placing the loiterer looking up the court from within the passage at the couple further down it, and Sarah Lewis having to negotiate her way through the human blockage.

This obviously didn't happen.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No, Fleets.

That only holds true if Lewis was incapable of noticing someone in Dorset Street as she entered the court. Her own location at the entrance to the court says nothing about the whereabouts of the three individuals she mentioned. It would simply mean that she looked out at Dorset Street from the court entrance. "Further on" most emphatically means further down Dorset Street and not further down the court passage. Having them all crammed into the narrow passage doesn't bear scrutiny; it would mean placing the loiterer looking up the court from within the passage at the couple further down it, and Sarah Lewis having to negotiate her way through the human blockage.

This obviously didn't happen.

For the reasons I mentioned I'm not convinced, Ben.

Logically, she would have said: "as I walked down Dorset Street, I saw x, then I entered the court". Logically, this is the most likely statement had they been positioned where you believe they were. The best I can give you is that due to a sub standard education, her trail of thought may not have been logical nor precise. Basically, you're suggesting that she ambles down Dorset Street and sees no one until she goes into the court, and presumably she has been shuffling down the street with her head down and decides to look up as she goes in the court. Likely?

[Ben]

Logically, she would have said: "as I walked down Dorset Street, I saw x, then I entered the court".

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