Who did Sarah See?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Sarah Lewis never described any of the man she saw as “well-dressed” to my recollection, nor did she specify that the both women (Ringers’ and the one in drink) were “hatless”. So I’m afraid there is no coincidence at all here. There is no reason to think that the couple outside Ringers’ looked anything remotely like the couple who passed along Dorset Street. I would suggest that the opposite is true. The Dorset Street couple were described as a “young man with a woman”, and the former doesn’t sound anything like the Bethnal Green man who was thought to be around 40 years of age.

Bethnal Green man and Astrakhan man were clearly not the same man, and neither of them was the “young man” who “passed along” Dorset Street.

I utterly reject Kennedy’s account of her alleged Friday morning experiences as it is clear that she was one of the “half a dozen” women reported by the Star to have plagiarized another woman’s account. If you’re assuming that Kennedy was Lewis, which is almost certainly wrong, then it is inevitable that confusion should arise.

“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.”

Assuming Hutchinson told the truth (which I consider vastly improbable), there were clearly three separate couples, and at 2:30am, everyone’s location would have been as follows:

Hutchinson – Opposite Miller's Court.

Lewis – About to enter Miller’s Court

Kelly and Astrakhan – Inside room #13

BG-man and female companion – Outside Ringers’ on Commercial Street

“Young man with a woman” – Passing along Dorset Street.

If Hutchinson didn’t tell the truth, the above would still be true but with Astrakhan removed from the equation.

“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”

Well no, I’m not obliged to accept it because only one or two articles stated this. It didn’t appear in the Daily Telegraph or the vast majority of press reports of Lewis’ inquest evidence, and it certainly didn’t appear in her police statement. It was obviously a transcription error. Again, we can’t treat every press report as gospel, especially not the early bits of nonsense from 10th November. I don’t take the “funny man” press statement remotely seriously. It was second hand hearsay – gossip, essentially – that certainly didn’t find its way to the inquest.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I agree with most of your post, with the exception of the last bit about Lewis' ability to discern that the loitering man was waiting for someone to emerge from the court. We discussed this in some depth over on the "wrong night" thread, and I light-heartedly suggested that you take it from an actor that there are certainly ways of conveying this through your body language.

In addition, there is no evidence that Lewis made her observation in a "VERY short time". Her inquest evidence only reveals where she made the observation from - apparently at the entrance to the court. She says nothing about how long the observation lasted once she had arrived at that vantage point. However, the time was clearly sufficient for her to have formed the impression she did, in my opinion.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"We discussed this in some depth over on the "wrong night" thread, and I light-heartedly suggested that you take it from an actor that there are certainly ways of conveying this through your body language."

I am often very impressed with actors, Ben, and their ability to use body language to convey messages. But I still have not seen a single suggestion that would solve this particular problem. Last time over,someone suggested that the man could have crossed his arms over the chest, but I donīt think that implies waiting for someone to come out. It could just as well point to the man warming himself on a chilly night.
So ho - exactly - does a man with no wristwatch and arguably little time on his hands make an impression of waiting for somebody to come out a court? My own stance is that this cannot be done in any universally working manner. Of course, Lewis may have gotten the IMPRESSION that this was what she saw, but if others disagree about any special body language portraying this, then that detail in her testimony would be very questionable, not only because it was a second-hand addition, but also because it spoke of something that could not be done in a fashion that would satisfy people on the whole.

And can we please refrain from wearing the phrase "there is no evidence" out? Letīs instead take a look at the evidence we DO have! And THAT tells us that Sarah Lewis did not see the man until she stepped into the archway. If we work from the presumption that she kept a normal walking space, then she would have only little time to observe her man. And letīs face it: her assertion at the police report that she could not describe the man tallies eminently with a short time of observation. That is what happens when we only get a brief look from the corner of our eye - we note, but we cannot describe. In that context, we have a perfect match between observation circumstances and outcome. And that, of course, lies very much behind why I think it very logical to question the value of her evidence after it was changed. Admittedly, the description she gave was not a very full one, but as such, it would have been quite a feat to pin shape and length, hat type and colour plus an intent to wait for somebody coming out of the court, after having thrown a glance over her shoulder on a dark, blustery and rainy night, before hurrying in to meet the Keylers. To me, it all fits together this way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

This is from the East London Advertiser, November 17:

"The man was looking very eagerly up the court as if he was waiting for somebody to come out."

If this is what was said on behalf of Lewis, then it would seem that the underlying reason for her assertion was the manner in which the man looked up the court! I am in no way surprised by this. I can imagine a scene where Lewis tells the inquest of her suggestion and at the same time illustrates it by producing the same sort of gaze herself. This was what Prater did - she tried to replicate the cry of "Murder" in an apparently rather melodramatic fashion.
Trouble is, if this is all there was behind it - and no, there is no absolute evidence saying it was! - then any actor would be faced with an even more daunting task, trying to gaze as if waiting for someone to come out of a court.

For all we know, they guy may have been shortsighted ...

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Last time over,someone suggested that the man could have crossed his arms over the chest, but I donīt think that implies waiting for someone to come out. It could just as well point to the man warming himself on a chilly night.

I suppose you mean me by that ‘someone’, Fish, but the way you make it sound here isn’t in line with what I wrote.

In answer to your:
“The latter observation contains a registering of a rather complex set of actions, involving the fixing of the gaze of the man, his posture and a few more things, God knows what, though, since I cannot say how one mimics waiting for somebody to come out of a court. Can you?”,
I wrote:
“I can’t describe those mimics, but I think I would recognize it if I saw someone (who had never had a watch) who was waiting for someone, Fish. In this case, the man she saw was very likely looking intently up the court, perhaps with his arms crossed, not reacting to the approaching Lewis.”
That’s nothing like suggesting that just crossing your arms implies waiting for someone.

I thought I’d set that straight.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I suppose you mean me by that ‘someone’, Fish"

Apparently - I had forgotten!

"the way you make it sound here isn’t in line with what I wrote."

Sorry about that - but I still say that the detail of crossing your arms does not imply waiting for someone to come out.

You write:

"“I can’t describe those mimics, but I think I would recognize it if I saw someone (who had never had a watch) who was waiting for someone, Fish."

...and thatīs just the trouble! People THINK they would recognize a thing like this, but they canīt tell how. You try with "the man she saw was very likely looking intently up the court, perhaps with his arms crossed, not reacting to the approaching Lewis."

Questions:
Why do intently looking up a court imply waiting for someone to come out of that court? Why could it not be equally viable as an indicator of somebody looking for some sort of signal from a prostitute? Or an interest in an architectural element? Or a wish to see if there were lavatories at hand in the court?
Why would intently looking up a court exclude any of these possibilities and focus only on waiting for somebody to come out the court?

Similarly, crossing your arms may imply a need to scratch your back. It may imply a chilly feeling on a chilly night. What it must not imply is waiting for someone to exit a court.

You know where I will move next, Frank: Not reacting to Lewis may depend on deafness, on a prioritized will to find out about them lavatories, a dislike of women, a wish to not evoke attention (maybe he was a burglar) or just preferring to keep his eye fixed on that prostituteīs signal system.

Itīs all good and well to think that we would recognize a person who is waiting for somebody to exit an East end court, Frank. But if we cannot show that there is a universal way to make such a thing completely clear, putting it beyond doubt that this was the only thing he may have done, we must recognize that Lewisīinterpretation may have been totally wrong - if she even saw what the man did, that is. I have pointed to the very obvious possibility that she may well never have done so.

This detail is a truly annoying one, in the sense that people are taking a second-hand testimony, claiming that the man outside Crossinghams was waiting for someone to come out, as gospel. It never can be. It is a testimony that can very easily be questioned as par the viablity of it, being secondary to the police report, and a claim that must be regarded as a personal interpretation and not as any laid-down truth.

Once again sorry if you felt I misrepresented you, Frank. I did - but unintentionally; the crossed arm reference leapt to mind as an example of unviable - at least to my mind - propositions, that was just it. I hope Iīve cleared that up now!

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

...and thatīs just the trouble! People THINK they would recognize a thing like this, but they canīt tell how.

It’s perhaps comparable to having seen an attractive woman at the café, in the book shop or wherever, Fish, and not being able to describe her very well afterwards. Yet, when you see her again, you immediately recognize her.

Why would intently looking up a court exclude any of these possibilities and focus only on waiting for somebody to come out the court?

**Talking about impressions!** It doesn't excludes other possibilities, Fish, and I’ve never said it would. But the thing is that whatever he did, whatever his posture, it gave her the impression that he was waiting for someone to come out of the court.

... we must recognize that Lewisīinterpretation may have been totally wrong - if she even saw what the man did, that is.

She may very well have been wrong, Fish, but – still – the thing is that he apparently gave her the impression that he was waiting for someone to come out of the court. And that bit still fits with what Hutchinson’s account.

This detail is a truly annoying one, in the sense that people are taking a second-hand testimony, claiming that the man outside Crossinghams was waiting for someone to come out, as gospel.

I’m not one of those who take it as ‘gospel’, but I’m not all that prepared to question it the way you do and that’s because of the very reason given above.

It never can be. It is a testimony that can very easily be questioned as par the viablity of it, being secondary to the police report, and a claim that must be regarded as a personal interpretation and not as any laid-down truth.

It’s a pity she wasn’t questioned like we would have done (not knowing what we don’t know)!

Once again sorry if you felt I misrepresented you, Frank. I did - but unintentionally; the crossed arm reference leapt to mind as an example of unviable - at least to my mind - propositions, that was just it. I hope Iīve cleared that up now!

No worries, Fish!

Incidentally, Lewis' police statement reads:"when I came up the Court there was a man..." and 'to come up' also means 'to approach'.

All the best,
Frank

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Sarah Lewis never described any of the man she saw as “well-dressed” to my recollection, nor did she specify that the both women (Ringers’ and the one in drink) were “hatless”.

Ben.
Lewis described the man who she saw on Wednesday as a 'Gentleman', by his appearance?, by his dress?, but perhaps not by his actions. He presented himself as a Gentleman.
Paumier used the phrase, "dressed like a gentleman". While Kennedy used the phrase, "respectably dressed".
I think we get the picture Ben..

The hatless drunk was referred to as such..
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

All the best, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"It’s perhaps comparable to having seen an attractive woman at the café, in the book shop or wherever, Fish, and not being able to describe her very well afterwards. Yet, when you see her again, you immediately recognize her."

Nope. But a nice try anyway! You see, Frank, in this case we are not speaking of an absolute thing like looks - we are speaking of an etheric INTENT recorded by an observer. And if we accept what I say - that we cannot pin such an intent in any viable fashion - the the only way memory can play a part here, would be if Lewis had formerly seen somebody watching a court in order to see whether somebody would exit that court, and then, later, recognized the same pattern of actions, movements and looks of another man, her "loiterer", thus identifying them as the same intent.
Ridiculous, ainīt it?

"It doesn't excludes other possibilities, Fish, and I’ve never said it would."

Good! Then we are agreed on that, and that is the key factor here. We are speaking of an impression on Lewisībehalf, and not of a display of any well-known pattern of movements and gestures that inevitably discloses that somebody is waiting for someone to exit a court!

"She may very well have been wrong, Fish, but – still – the thing is that he apparently gave her the impression that he was waiting for someone to come out of the court."

There you go - exactly: it was an IMPRESSION.

"And that bit still fits with what Hutchinson’s account."

Only, Frank, if she made the correct interpretation! Right? What the man outside Crossinghams did was potentially comparable with what Hutchinson claimed to have done - but it was EQUALLY potentially totally different from it. Lewis made a claim, and if it was a good claim, a disastrous claim or something inbetween, we cannot tell. Therefore, we cannot say that the loiterer did exactly what Hutchinson did - not if he was looking for a toilet, he didnīt! Not if he was nearsighted and gazed into the rain for no reason at all, he didnīt.
And this is what I have been after all along; if the man had thrown a screwdriver into the air and Hutchinson had claimed to have thrown a screwdriver into the air, then we would KNOW that they had both been doing the same thing. But in this case, we can know no such thing. We only know what kind of an interpretation Lewis made of his appearance. And we know that she did not mention it at her police interview. In that sense, the "corroboration" spoken about is a sitting duck waiting too be shot down.

"It’s a pity she wasn’t questioned like we would have done"

Now, thereīs a truth if ever I saw one!

"No worries, Fish!"

Thanks! Appreciated!

"Incidentally, Lewis' police statement reads:"when I came up the Court there was a man..." and 'to come up' also means 'to approach'. "

It does. But there are other pointers and snippets that all speak of her as being in or at the archway as she first sees the man, like for example the Daily News: “In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing” And letīs not forget that the inquest recording of it reads “When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake.”

I still say Sarah Lewis did not have much time on her hands to make the observations she claimed to have made three days after she had stated the opposite – that she could not say anything at all about her man. And the more time we buy her, the lesser faith we can put in that assertion.

All the best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

This is just the sort of thing that creates antagonism, Fisherman – the repetition of previously challenged arguments. When I reminded you that “we discussed this in some depth”, that was a not-very-subtle hint that it wouldn’t be desirable to waste space repeating it all over again here. But since you’ve done so, I had better locate the original discussion.

There are many ways to convey the impression that you are waiting for someone. Peering intently into the court, craning the heck in that direction. Many different ways really. You just have to use some imagination and common sense. Certainly, no jury member or police official raised any objection to this impression when she imparted her evidence at the inquest, probably because they too were capable of using their imagination. Reasonable people accepted then – just as they accept now – that human beings are quite capable of communicating through their body language that they are watching and waiting for someone. But then what you do after I’ve addressed the “challenge”? That’s right, you go straight back to the original “challenge” as though it had never been addressed. This is what you should consider life too short for.

Your very implausible contention is that Lewis only thought she detected that her loiterer was watching or waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder, and then astonishingly, Hutchinson came forward as soon as Lewis’ inquest evidence was released and claimed that he was watching and waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder. In other words, Lewis’ “mistaken” (according to you) impression of the behaviour of a man standing outside the court an hour and a bit before Kelly’s murder just happened to accidentally coincide with the self-confessed behaviour of a real person who claimed to have been standing outside the court an hour and a bit before Kelly’s murder. The identical wording merely offers additional reinforcement, if it was really needed, that Hutchinson and Lewis’ wideawake man were probably one and the same, as acknowledged for decades.

There is no coincidence here at all. The behaviour of Hutchinson and the wideawake loiterer were identical because they were the same person, and it’s high time you stopped conjuring up weaker and weaker reasons for creating and imaginary schism between the two. You should also stop trying to patronise people who disagree with your nonsense. “Nope, but nice try anyway” is condescending in the extreme.

Short of nose-blowingly ridiculous “coincidence”, Lewis’ impression of the loiterer’s behaviour was absolutely spot on, because it tallied precisely with what the real loiterer later claimed he was doing there, which wasn’t “looking for a toilet” or watching a rat or any of the other upsettingly nonsensical alternatives you’ve come up with in desperation.

Now, just to re-cap, we’ve had this discussion before.

So do not, under any circumstances, argue about with me about it here. Life is too short for you to do so.

In fact it's probably best if I write your line for you:

“Ben, I think we should agree to disagree and move on, rather than going round in repetitive circles”.

Yes, Fisherman. Good suggestion.

[FrankO]

You see, Frank, in this case we are not speaking of an absolute thing like looks - we are speaking of an etheric INTENT recorded by an observer. And if we accept what I say - that we cannot pin such an intent in any viable fashion - the the only way memory can play a part here, would be if Lewis had formerly seen somebody watching a court in order to see whether somebody would exit that court, and then, later, recognized the same pattern of actions, movements and looks of another man, her "loiterer", thus identifying them as the same intent.

I’m afraid I don’t agree with you here, Fish. It’s not rocket science. The ‘pattern of actions’ doesn’t need to consist of more than the right combination of a gaze, a facial expression and a posture. And humans are quite capable of putting 2 and 2 together.

Only, Frank, if she made the correct interpretation! Right?

Nope. 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.

In that sense, the "corroboration" spoken about is a sitting duck waiting too be shot down.

There’s no doubt that Lewis mistook the day. There’s no doubt that she saw a man standing against the lodging house on the opposite side of Dorset Street. There’s no doubt that she deposed at the inquest that this man was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. There’s no doubt that Hutchinson claimed he was in Dorset Street at the date & hour stated by Lewis, looking up the court, waiting for someone to come out. There’s no doubt that Hutchinson came forward very soon after the inquest was over.

You try to discredit Lewis, so that it fits better with the notion of an honest Hutchinson having mistaken the day. But whatever you do, it can never change the fact that she stated at the inquest that she saw a man looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. So, in that way the duck is safely in the air and will never get down.

Judging on his account only, on what has been entrusted to paper, there’s little doubt that Hutchinson didn’t tell nothing but the truth. Not that it would make him Kelly’s killer, but that's simply too obvious for me. Since it would be too much of a coincidence if Lewis was also lying or mistaking, my view is that there was a rather innocent reason for the discrepancies between her police and inquest statement. That’s much easier to swallow for me than the other way around, with all due respect for especially Abberline.

Like I've said in an earlier post, Fish, I don't think we're going to agree any time soon on this aspect of the case, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This is just the sort of thing that creates antagonism, Fisherman – the repetition of previously challenged arguments."

With all the respect I can muster, Ben: No, I donīt think that this is what causes antagonism in our exchange. I think it to a very large degree is caused by your unwillingness to accept suggestions as anything but fringe-lunatic and obscenities against human thought.

I donīt mind people disagreeing with me - in fact, that disagreement is what I am here for; to have my views tested. But it becomes ridiculous when you treat for example my suggestion that Sarah Lewis may not have been truthful as something that should owe me a place as tolietcleaner at the nearest loonie-bin. It is when you suggest things like these that I turn somewhat sour and will NOT have an exchange finished off by a completely outrageous and very discourteous puddle of vomit from your side. I donīt like the idea of someone reading it and thinking "Ha, THAT frightened him off!"

In Lewisīcase, I know, you know and the rest of the world knows that I am correct in stating, as I have before, that there can only be three answers to the question about the changed testimony: She remembered, she unconsciously tried to please or she lied. I think you are going to have to agree with this?
After that, we can see that there are two possibilities speaking FOR a useless testimony and one speaking AGAINST such a thing. We both also know that we do not have any reaction to the changed testimony on record, and thus we cannot tell what the police thought about it. We also know that changing testimonies inbetween interrogations is the very thing the police are looking for when trying to check the veracity of a story. They ask, and ask again, and ask again, and if the story holds up throughout, then fine. If it doesnīt, they ask themselves why. And they very often start harbouring suspicions about witnesses that fail to get things correct.

All of this is totally uncontroversial. It is very, very basic, and if I suggest that no people with any form of insight into these things would deny what I am saying.

After that, it is quite okay to sense very powerfully that Sarah Lewis was telling the truth throughout, and just forgot about her manīs apparition at the police report occasion. Not a living soul should object to anybody elseīs convictions in cases like these.
But I very strongly suggest that no matter if this IS your conviction, there is no conclusive evidence at all to lean against, and as such, you may therfore very well potentially be wrong. It may apply that instead of just remembereing, Lewis subconsciously tried to please or lied. It is extremely basic to realize that these are viable options too, both of them.

Once you agree with this and show it in action by refraining from alluding to me being some sort of retard for suggesting that Lewis may have either lied or subconsciously tried to please, I think it will be much, much easier for us to disagree and move on. 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 order to show that I am not deranged but instead offering a totally viable view of things, allowed for by both the existing evidence and empirical research.

I can be no clearer on this, Ben, and I am of the meaning that the ball lies in your court now.

"You just have to use some imagination and common sense."

But my view - and Frank seemingly agrees with this - is that common sense also tells us that a craned heck and an intent stare can also be interpreted as other things than waiting for somebody to come out of a court, Ben! And THAT is the key factor. What the man did - and seemingly he stared, nothing else - was interpreted by Lewis as waiting for somebody to come out the court, and that is fine - it tells us that his actions were such as to give one person this impression. What impression it would have given another person, though, we canīt tell. And at the end of the day, what this means is that we should NOT say that the so called loiterer was doing the exact same thing as Hutch did - looking up the court as if waiting for somebody to come out. We donīt know that this was his intent - we only know that this was how Lewis interpreted things. If it resembled what Hutch did and how he did it - we donīt know!

"Certainly, no jury member or police official raised any objection to this impression when she imparted her evidence at the inquest, probably because they too were capable of using their imagination"

There you go again! This time you try to convey the impression that I am incapable of using MY imagination. 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.

"Your very implausible contention is that Lewis only thought she detected that her loiterer was watching or waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder"

Take a look at this again, Ben. You begin by dragging my view in the mud by dubbing it "very implausible" - but is it not true that Sarah Lewis MUST have thought so, and that she could NOT have KNOWN it? Or are you saying the opposite? I think we must BOTH realize that we KNOW for certain that Sarah Lewis THOUGHT that this was what the man was doing, and that she did not KNOW. This is why she says "as if waiting". She does not say "because he was waiting for someone to come out", does she?
So who is correct here? Me, who says that she could only have thought and suggested this, or you, who say that my suggestion is "very implausible"?

"There is no coincidence here at all."

We canīt tell. It either was or it was not. We donīt know. Is that not correct? Or are you now saying that this matter is settled, proven and evidenced?

"The behaviour of Hutchinson and the wideawake loiterer were identical because they were the same person"

I just explained at length why we have no reason at all to accept as gospel that the behaviour WAS the same. Once again, do you regard it as a proven thing that these two men did the EXACT same things? Or is it more resonable to say that the did things that may potentially have been the same, but that may equally potentiall have been different things? Could it not be that Hutchinson was standing at the corner of the archway throughout his vigil, perhaps leaning against it, looking down the court in a quite leisurely manner, whereas the so called loiterer stood on the other side of the street, against Crossinghamīs, perhaps reeling his upper body from side to side and holding his hand as a cap-peak over his eyes?
If that was what happened, then both would have been doing things that may - or may not! - have given the impression of looking up the court, as if waiting for somebody to come out. But their respective actions and their positions in the street would have been radicaly different just the same.
Are you saying that this is impossible? If so - why? And please exclude the view that they were there at the same time - if THAT had been a proven thing, I would have agreed with you. But it is not so!

"You should also stop trying to patronise people who disagree with your nonsense."

Donīt even go there, Ben. One cannot try and ridicule another poster the way you do with me, and then blame the same poster for patronizing people!

"Short of nose-blowingly ridiculous “coincidence”, Lewis’ impression of the loiterer’s behaviour was absolutely spot on"

And again! Quit this - it is extremely unbecoming! Have you noticed that I do not call your suggestions "a shame to a deranged neanderthal", "arse-numbingly stupid" (your old contribution, of course) or an "obscene threat to intelligence"?
That is not because I lack the ability or language to do so. Instead, another parameter governs this: Your suggestion that Sarah Lewis told the truth is viable, and so is your suggestion that Hutchinson was lying. But so are also MY suggestions, which is why I would like for you to recognize this instead of escalating your unworthy and unviable manners. Maybe you find this request of mine patronizing - but it is nevertheless absolutely necessary for any sort of useful debate.

"upsettingly nonsensical"

And once more! Why would anybody be "upset" by any viable alternative suggestion for the so called loitererīs role? Why could he NOT have been checking for toilets? How do you intellectually explain this?

"So do not, under any circumstances, argue about with me about it here. Life is too short for you to do so.
In fact it's probably best if I write your line for you:
“Ben, I think we should agree to disagree and move on, rather than going round in repetitive circles”.
Yes, Fisherman. Good suggestion."

Alright! Bought! And here is MY line for YOU:

"Fisherman, I know that Iīm touchy and Iīm afraid that it has escalated into something very deplorable. I have been saying very disrespectful things about your completely viable suggestions. I donīt know what flew into me! I am really very sorry about this, and I have decided that I will henceforth offer you the same respect I like to be shown myself. I will therefore weigh my words carefully, and refrain from trying to paint your suggestions out as something conthrived by a madman. Please forgive me, Fisherman."

Oh, okay - when you put it like this, how could I NOT forgive you? Hugs, everybody!

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

There’s no doubt that Lewis mistook the day.

... meaning, of course, that it's clear that she didn't make a mistake as to the day...

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"I’m afraid I don’t agree with you here, Fish. It’s not rocket science. The ‘pattern of actions’ doesn’t need to consist of more than the right combination of a gaze, a facial expression and a posture. And humans are quite capable of putting 2 and 2 together."

Yes, humans are able to put two and two together. Thatīs what I do when I say that different people will put two and two together in different manners. Some people will interpret things in one way, others in another fashion. Take a trip through our world and try and give thumbīs up in all countries, and then youīll see what happens - ouch!

"What she said at the inquest, still fits what Hutchinson told."

What she said at the inquest POTENTIALLY fits with what he told, Frank. There lies the rub. We donīt know what kind of behaviour would prompt Lewis to come up with a decision of having seen somebody who seemed to wait for someone else to come out of a court. It would seem that it lay in an intent stare, end of story. If so, all the rest was interpretation. And we DONīT even know if Hutchinson stared intently, do we? It would have been tiresome to do so for a full 45 minutes, right?

The bottom line is the same: the two persons may well have done different things, standing in different positions. I hope you agree with this? After that, it is everybodyīs prerogative to believe that they MUST have done the same things, exactly, if that is their wish. But thatīs a ride Iīm not joining any time soon!

"There’s no doubt that Lewis mistook the day. There’s no doubt that she saw a man standing against the lodging house on the opposite side of Dorset Street. There’s no doubt that she deposed at the inquest that this man was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. There’s no doubt that Hutchinson claimed he was in Dorset Street at the date & hour stated by Lewis, looking up the court, waiting for someone to come out. There’s no doubt that Hutchinson came forward very soon after the inquest was over."

I agree: There is no doubt about all of this. Nor do I do so.

Luckily, though, you seem to agree that there is no doubt that Lewis could have made the wrong interpretation. I also believe that you agree that there is no doubt that she could have been lying? Nor would you, I suspect, complaint if I say that changing views inbetween testimonies generally weakens the value of that testimony? And I take it that you agree that people may be msitaken as to the days? Plus I know you will concur with me when I say that Walter Dew was of the meaning that this had happened to Hutchinson? And that there is no genuine reason to believe that people who do not make it in time to an inquest, for this reason or another, are any worse witnesses than others?

"I don't think we're going to agree any time soon on this aspect of the case, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

Fine by me, Frank!

All the best,
Fisherman

[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