Who did Sarah See?

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding the policeman Hutchinson noted, is it not possible he heard the 'measured tread' of his steps as opposed to actually having seen him?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Don't agree with this at all.

Being a lad from a mining village in Durham, I can imagine a 'toff' walking into such environment: "look at this prick here" and you would look him up and down (not me personally, wear what you want, but know how it works due to being born and bred in a working class area).

yes but that type of toff isn't a mutilating serial killer is he, hoping to avoid detection, JACK dressing as LA DE DA is rediculous and describing him that well is virtually impossible

[Malcolm X]

Hi Wick,

Your version of events is obviously well thought-out, and I frankly think you've nailed some things here. I'd like to see more comments from others, and you should probably reproduce here the report that mentions a man standing in Kelly's doorway, unless you feel that was a reporter's error. But I'm quite impressed with your treatment of Sarah Lewis.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

his version of events has no bearing on what we know of the night at all, he's speculating like crazy.

GH was only seen outside, it is very hard to detect people standing still in pitch blackness, because the human eye detects movement, colours are impossible to see in near pitch blackness, LA DE DA would have been seen in shades of black to mid grey.... this is a fact, i've experienced this many times before, also at night the person you see is blurred and out of focus, i worked as a security night porter for 3 years, you can only really detect things like a white tee shirt, but is he wearing blue or black Jeans etc, you can not tell at night, and that's in lighting far better than in 1888. this area would look like it does now but with a ``power cut``, you would have trouble seeing anything...... GAS LAMPS?...... weak, only about 40 watts and the glass would be filthy dirty..... this is 2am so there's little domestic lighting on too but if so, this would be very poor candle light only.

many here need to check the facts and think more realistically, it would be so bloody dark, you would be shocked to see just how dark it is

[Malcolm X]

.Quote:
"When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street."
Star, 14 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.
Many happy returns, you're the same age as my mother.

nope, this does not count, you got this from a tabloid paper.... only go by the initial police statement, you can not afford to trust anything said from the gutter press.

the paper is saying, ``the police failed in their duty, because nobody during this time period patrolled down Dorset St``..... it's actually quite clever, but that's what's going on here.

[Abby Normal]

In response to Tom, here is how I see the sequence of movements by Sarah Lewis.

I think a sequence of events can be determined from all the statements given by Sarah Lewis.

Keeping Hutchinson's statement in mind we need to weave in the movements of Lewis that night.

There are three points in her story which get little attention.

First, Lewis makes no mention of a man standing in Dorset St. while Lewis is approaching Millers Court.

If Hutchinson truly stood outside Millers Court, where was he when Sarah Lewis passed by?

What she does say is:
“-- When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House.”

Alternately 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.”

And again:
“...When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake.”

Lewis seems to make a point of saying “when she entered the court (passage)”. Yet we all know that if Hutchinson had been standing opposite Millers Court at that time anyone walking down Dorset St. would have seen him standing there long before you reach Millers Court.

That begs the question, where had Lewis been just before she entered the passage? In other words, what had she just stepped out of before she stepped into the passage?

Second, Sarah Lewis specifically say's she left the 'couple' behind her outside the Britannia, while she walked on by.
Quote:
"They were standing talking together. I passed on, but looked back at him. I went on my way. I did not tell a policeman, as I did not pass one on my way. I saw the man talking to the woman at the corner of Dorset-street, and left them there."

Third, Lewis's story suddenly changes and she tells us that she is now looking at a couple walking up Millers Court from behind.
“I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.”
Is this a different couple?, I think not, no need to invent another couple.

One solution to all three points of controversy could be that Sarah Lewis stepped into McCarthy's shop before she went up the passage. The shop often stayed open till 3:00am.

Mrs McCarthy has said that very early on that Friday morning someone, a customer (not a tennent), mentioned to her about a funny looking man who she saw up the court.
This customer could have been anyone certainly, but equally, it could have been Lewis.

The inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis is entirely comprised of her responding to questions. At no point do we see her speaking freely about her movements that night. Lewis was asked something in the order of 20 or more questions and her replies have been compiled as if a continuous narrative, but it is not.
Sarah Lewis made no mention of entering McCarthy's, I think, because the question was never asked. She was only asked what she saw, not where she had been between sightings.

Lewis was ahead of the couple as she arrived at Millers Court. She steps into McCarthy's shop just before it closes. While she is inside the shop the couple who she left outside the Britannia arrive at Millers Court, walk up the passage, and Hutchinson follows on behind and takes up his position outside Crossinghams.
Lewis then steps out of the shop and noticed Hutchinson standing over the road looking up the passage, while this couple are walking up the passage ahead of her.

Sarah Lewis did say there was no-one in the Court but this was her response to a question, and we don't know what the question was. Presumably Lewis was responding to a query as to the intentions of the couple. The couple had obviously gone indoors rather than into the court for a 'quicky', therefore, "there was no-one in the court".

How Lewis came to see Hutchinson standing outside Kelly's door is not clear. Hutchinson gave no clue as to when he walked up the passage to stand at her door, whether this was before his 45 minute vigil or after is the problem, it could be either.
Quote:
“...I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise.”

Lewis said she did not sleep but only dozed, whether she saw Hutchinson's figure through a window or not we can only guess.

That is my interpretation so far.

Regards, Jon S.

Hey Wicker
Wow you have really put some thought in it. Can you clarify to me? Are you saying that the couple SL saw outside the Britannia and then later walking up the court (millers) is Bethnal Green man and Mary Kelly?

[Tom_Wescott]

his version of events has no bearing on what we know of the night at all, he's speculating like crazy.

Actually, he wasn't. He presented the facts and created a plausible scenario. What really recommended Wick's scenario to me was how he explained why Lewis didn't offer specifics, such as coming out of McCarthy's shop, etc. This is a good example of what I consider effective research, where you step back from the 'big picture' and study events and people in isolation, from every angle, opening your mind to many different interpretations, then when you put the pieces back together, the more likely interpretations generally come to the surface and you can get at truth. Sometimes, when you're lucky, one 'most likely' scenario will be rather obvious, and that's what Wick has here. I'd like to think on it some more, and hear feedback from others, but it has the ring of truth to it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi all,

Lewis simply observed the wideawake man as she entered the court. She may not have noticed him particularly on her walk along Dorset Street, since by her own account, she was preoccupied at that time with the man talking to a woman on Commercial Street near Ringers' whom she had just passed. That doesn't mean that the wideawake man wasn't there previously, or that there is any mystery regarding Lewis' prior movements. Nobody "passed up the court" in Lewis' account. As always with press-reported witness testimony, it is essential to make allowances for the possibility of error and misinterpretation.

In all but one press account and her police account, the man Lewis saw was standing opposite the court, i.e. near or against the lodging house, and most assuredly not outside Kelly's door. The newspaper that reported the latter was irrefutably in error. The same may be said of the couple that allegedly passed "up the court". They did not exist. It was a simple error on the part of one reporter, since all other versions of her testimony and the police report that the couple passed along.

A distinction must be made, incidentally, between the couple outside the Britannia and the young man and woman "in drink" who passed along Dorset Street. Lewis makes it very clear that they were not the same. There is not the slightest suggestion that any member of these "couples" had anything to do with Miller's Court.

The "funny-looking man" detail is another example of second-hand uncorroborated hearsay creeping into early press accounts of the Kelly murder. Naturally, there is no mention of any such individual at the inquest, and the "customer" is never identified. Wisdom lies in setting aside the unsupported (and often sensationalist) press tattle, which was particularly notorious in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder, and focusing instead on the inquest testimony as reported by the majority of newspapers.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for concluding that Sarah Lewis stepped into McCarthy's shop in the early hours of 9th November.

The sequence of events, as reported to the police and imparted to the inquest, was unquestionably as follows:

Lewis heads north down Commercial Street, and before turning right onto Dorset Street, notices a man with a black bag talking to a woman. She is preoccupied with this and keeps glancing behind her. Before turning right into the Miller's Court passage, she notices another man standing by Crossingham's lodging house, and also a couple in drink who "passed along" Dorset Street. She then enters the passage, notices nobody in the court itself or in the passage, and enters room #2.

Definitely no couple passing up the court, definitely no sighting of a "funny man", and definitely no excursion into McCarthy's shop.

[Ben]

Being a lad from a mining village in Durham, I can imagine a 'toff' walking into such environment

With all due respect, Fleets, it's one thing to "imagine" it, but quite another to present it as a credible proposal, which it very obviously isn't. This wasn't just your average "working class area". It was home to some of the worst streets in the whole of London, which were notorious for their "vicious, semi-criminal" elements. To make matters worse, these grot-spots (which were widely alluded to as such) were also host to a prowling serial killer and mutilator. The chances of a toff venturing there are slim, and a toff parading his "toffiness" for all the world to see - even slimmer. Not that I'm aware of any witness who described a "toff".

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

Your version of events is obviously well thought-out, and I frankly think you've nailed some things here. I'd like to see more comments from others, and you should probably reproduce here the report that mentions a man standing in Kelly's doorway, unless you feel that was a reporter's error. But I'm quite impressed with your treatment of Sarah Lewis.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Much appreciated Tom, thankyou.
I think its just a matter of assembling all the available testimony from both Lewis, Kennedy & Hutchinson and, rather than dismissing what we don't like, try to understand one occurance from three different perspectives.
Three different people are never able to tell the same story or describe the same person, allowances must be made.
This little portion of events that night did not include Kennedy so it is a simple matter of dovetailing two statements based on one assumption, that both witnesses were honest & truthfull.

The piece which places a man at Kelly's door is from the Daily News, 13 Nov...

"Sarah Lewes, 24, Great Pearl-street, a laundress, said-I know a Mrs. Keiller, in Miller's-court, and went to see her on Friday morning at 2.30 o'clock by Spitalfields Church clock. 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. I stopped that night at Mrs. Keiller's because I had had a few words at home. I slept in a chair and woke up about half-past three. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female voice shout "Murder!" It seemed like a young woman's voice. There was only one scream. I did not take any notice, especially as a short time before there had been a row in the court."

Initially I had assumed that "doorway" was an error for "archway"?, it's possible.
However, Hutchinson appears to confirm that he did indeed walk up the passage and look for light at Kelly's window, and listen for noise from inside.

"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

Obviously, Hutchinson is unable to see any light from Kelly's window, or hear any noise from within while he stands out in Dorset St. Therefore I take this as confirmation that he did indeed walk up to her door and perhaps also turned the corner to look through her window but as we all know the blinds were drawn and a coat covered the broken portion.

JACK dressing as LA DE DA is rediculous and describing him that well is virtually impossible

Actually, no its not.
I don't believe it is reasonable to assume the same man wore the same clothes, first on Thursday night, then again on Sunday morning.
Evening wear and morning wear are not usually the same.

I am more inclined to believe that most of the elaborate details given about Astrakhan were gleaned from the 'man' he saw in daylight at the Petticoat Lane market on Sunday morning. Whether Hutchinson had the correct man on Sunday remains debatable, but Hutch will certainly be able to glean more details in daylight than at night.

The fact remains he saw Kelly with a 'well-dressed' man about 2:00 am Friday morning, the details can be left aside for the reason I gave above. Compare that with the fact Sarah Lewis saw a couple go up the passage while someone (Hutch?) was standing 'on watch' in Dorset St.
This identifies the couple in question as the same couple followed by Hutchinson.

Hey Wicker
Wow you have really put some thought in it. Can you clarify to me? Are you saying that the couple SL saw outside the Britannia and then later walking up the court (millers) is Bethnal Green man and Mary Kelly?

Hi Abby, by now I'm sure you have realized that your question is answered (yes)

And, much as I hate to admit this (I'm fighting my biase here), your Bethnal Green man could very well be the same man who was seen with Stride by Best & Gardner, or his twin?
:-)
Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

GH was only seen outside, it is very hard to detect people standing still in pitch blackness, because the human eye detects movement, colours are impossible to see in near pitch blackness, LA DE DA would have been seen in shades of black to mid grey.... this is a fact,

Commercial St. was not in "pitch blackness"(?), Dorset St. was also not in "pitch blackness" (darkness). We know that only two gas-lamps were required to light Mitre Sq, and what was that, about 75 feet across?
So even an approximate 37 foot radius around a lamp carries sufficient light.

How about the Court at the end of the passage in Millers Court?
Was that in "pitch blackness"?

No, of course not, Cox was well able to describe Blotchy at midnight, and it is not any darker at 2:00 am than it is at 12:00am.
Besides, there was a gas-lamp outside Kelly's door, normally kept lit until the shop closed.
Whether you 'think' there was sufficient light, either in the main street, side street or in Millers Court, has no bearing on this analysis.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

Your scenario makes perfect sense. Regarding Astrakhan Man, we must learn to get the famous newspaper illustration of him out of our mind. This was done without the assistance or approval of George Hutchinson and is an exaggeration of how the man appeared. Your idea that some of the detail may have come from a 'second sighting' at another time is new and interesting to me. What do you base this on?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

It has been discussed in great detail already, but "Mrs. Kennedy" was almost certainly not a genuine witness, but rather a plagiarist who "borrowed" Sarah Lewis' genuine account and sought to pass it off as her own experience. A reporter from the Star observed that several woman were stealing from a witness whose account involved a cry of "oh murder", and Mrs. Kennedy more than fits the bill for one of the "stealers", with Lewis as the original source. This explanation would neatly account for the unusual degree of similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts, the fact that the latter was not at the inquest, and the aforementioned Star article. In my opinion, if you want to revive Mrs. Kennedy as a credible witness, you may as well do the same for the various other discredited press claims that appeared in the immediate aftermath of the murder, such as the little boy that Kelly was supposed to be living with.

As I mentioned earlier today, if people are interested in Lewis' inquest testimony, I would suggest the Times, Daily Telegraph and the majority of other newspapers, in addition to her police statement. Yes, you might get the occasional rag that advances a completely different claim to that repeated by all other sources, which is why separating the wheat from the chaff becomes necessary. Only one newspaper, the Daily News, asserted that Lewis saw a couple pass "up the court", and since every other Lewis-related source reported that the couple in question passed along (i.e. Dorset Street), I go with the overwhelming majority, and not this single, glaring example of misreporting on the part of the Daily News. If there was any suggestion that the female half of the couple was Kelly, it is obvious that Lewis would have been requested to an attempt an identification with the body, but unsurprisingly, this never happened.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,
...Your idea that some of the detail may have come from a 'second sighting' at another time is new and interesting to me. What do you base this on?

Hi Tom.
Purely on the Star account attributed to Hutchinson, gained via an interview.
Hutchinson claimed he thought he saw the Astrachan-man later on Sunday morning.

"I believe that he lives in the neighborhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

"I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police-station. I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police-station, which I did last night."

There was a policeman, apparently on point-duty?, stationed in Markets.
Recall the one referred to in the Chapman case, that he was not allowed to leave his post?

Because he 'fancied' he saw the man again, but 'was not certain', then it is reasonable to deduce that the man was dressed a little different.
Given that possibility, we cannot be certain that all the details published concerning Astrachan's description were not compiled from the two sightings.
Its a caveat that we must keep in mind.

At the end of the day, regardless of the published description of Astrachan, all we can accept is that he saw a 'well-dressed' man with Kelly, at the same time, at the same junction (Commercial St. / Dorset St.), and the couple going in the same direction, as was reported by Sarah Lewis.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

Much appreciated Tom, thankyou.
I think its just a matter of assembling all the available testimony from both Lewis, Kennedy & Hutchinson and, rather than dismissing what we don't like, try to understand one occurance from three different perspectives.
Three different people are never able to tell the same story or describe the same person, allowances must be made.
This little portion of events that night did not include Kennedy so it is a simple matter of dovetailing two statements based on one assumption, that both witnesses were honest & truthfull.

The piece which places a man at Kelly's door is from the Daily News, 13 Nov...

"Sarah Lewes, 24, Great Pearl-street, a laundress, said-I know a Mrs. Keiller, in Miller's-court, and went to see her on Friday morning at 2.30 o'clock by Spitalfields Church clock. 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. I stopped that night at Mrs. Keiller's because I had had a few words at home. I slept in a chair and woke up about half-past three. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female voice shout "Murder!" It seemed like a young woman's voice. There was only one scream. I did not take any notice, especially as a short time before there had been a row in the court."

Initially I had assumed that "doorway" was an error for "archway"?, it's possible.
However, Hutchinson appears to confirm that he did indeed walk up the passage and look for light at Kelly's window, and listen for noise from inside.

"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

Obviously, Hutchinson is unable to see any light from Kelly's window, or hear any noise from within while he stands out in Dorset St. Therefore I take this as confirmation that he did indeed walk up to her door and perhaps also turned the corner to look through her window but as we all know the blinds were drawn and a coat covered the broken portion.




Actually, no its not.
I don't believe it is reasonable to assume the same man wore the same clothes, first on Thursday night, then again on Sunday morning.
Evening wear and morning wear are not usually the same.

I am more inclined to believe that most of the elaborate details given about Astrakhan were gleaned from the 'man' he saw in daylight at the Petticoat Lane market on Sunday morning. Whether Hutchinson had the correct man on Sunday remains debatable, but Hutch will certainly be able to glean more details in daylight than at night.

The fact remains he saw Kelly with a 'well-dressed' man about 2:00 am Friday morning, the details can be left aside for the reason I gave above. Compare that with the fact Sarah Lewis saw a couple go up the passage while someone (Hutch?) was standing 'on watch' in Dorset St.
This identifies the couple in question as the same couple followed by Hutchinson.




Hi Abby, by now I'm sure you have realized that your question is answered (yes)

And, much as I hate to admit this (I'm fighting my biase here), your Bethnal Green man could very well be the same man who was seen with Stride by Best & Gardner, or his twin?
:-)
Best Wishes, Jon S.

I'll do you better than that:

Bethnal Green man-well dressed seen by Sarah Lewis- "Its something the Lady's don't like..."
Astrakhan man-seen by George Hutchinson-well dressed- Laughing with MK then "you;ll be allright for what I have told you.."
Marshall's man-Respectably dressed-seen by Marshall-"You will say anything but your prayers.."

There is a certain thread no?

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

The problem with a lot of these "well-dressed" sightings is that they are either transparently bogus or have nothing to do with the identity of the real killer. For instance, Sarah Lewis had nothing to do with that "something the ladies don't like" quote. This was yet another offering from either Mrs. Kennedy or one of the other non-inquest-attending witnesses who offered dubious accounts involving spooky-looking men before they were swiftly discarded. Sarah Lewis' real Bethnal Green man was obviously just a casual punter who picked an imprudent moment in that area's history to try to procure a prostitute, and was evidently neither opulently-dressed nor offering silly pseudo-witticisms.

Marshall obviously fares rather better in the credibility stakes, but his "anything but your prayers" man was evidently not the killer of Stride. Or more specifically, he was clearly not the broad-shouldered man who approached from Commercial Road, assaulted, and in all likelihood, killed her.

Once you remove the discredited nonsense from the bulk of evidence under assessment, you'll be reassured by the lack of ostentatiously-dressed spectres haunting the district, and by the absence of any reason to contemplate "gentleman Jack" as anything other than a grotesque glamorization of what was a series of brutal murders that were perpetrated, in all likelihood, by a grubby nondescript.

All the best,
Ben