Who did Sarah See?

[The Good Michael]

Malcontent X,

If you dismiss Lewis, you have no suspect named George Hutchinson. You have only a witness statement with no corroboration. And that certainly doesn't bode well for Topping being the murderer. Wicker is trying to piece together some coherent ideas here before our eyes and is doing a fine job. I don't agree that Lewis and Kennedy are the same people, but I do believe Kennedy's testimony is not just something to be dismissed because it scares Hutchinsonians. It is valid and is probably why Hutchinson's testimony was so important initially. It doesn't mean she was accurate or telling the truth, but it connects the dots with regards to why the police hung on Toppings words, and has nothing to do with the anti-semitism rant that has gone on as of late. It just has to do with similar stories.

Cheers,

Mike

[Malcolm X]

Malcontent X,

If you dismiss Lewis, you have no suspect named George Hutchinson. You have only a witness statement with no corroboration. And that certainly doesn't bode well for Topping being the murderer. Wicker is trying to piece together some coherent ideas here before our eyes and is doing a fine job. I don't agree that Lewis and Kennedy are the same people, but I do believe Kennedy's testimony is not just something to be dismissed because it scares Hutchinsonians. It is valid and is probably why Hutchinson's testimony was so important initially. It doesn't mean she was accurate or telling the truth, but it connects the dots with regards to why the police hung on Toppings words, and has nothing to do with the anti-semitism rant that has gone on as of late. It just has to do with similar stories.

Cheers,

Mike

no, because by his own admission GH was there, he admitted so, but we dont know if S.Lewis recognised him, so he might not have had corroboration anyway, this doesn't really mater either way because he did not break down during interrogation, plus it looks as if he was definitely there anyway.

the similar stories are due to one thing..... GH describes LA DE DA to suit a posher version of the same smart guy seen that night and on other days too.

finally, it doesn't look like toppy is JTR anyway, because it looks like Reg is definitely lieing....this is toppy pretending to be the real GH via his son Reg.

[Malcolm X]

i need to see exactly what S.Lewis said before i can coment much further, i'm not happy seeing it all split up into various posts, i need it all together in one list.

because right now, without a proper source, all of this looks like garbage quoted from a tabloid paper after the main event had finished!

i would also be highly suspicious of what Kennedy sais, plus seeing MJK in the morning too, i think many of you are forgetting that these witnesses are down and out prostitutes/ dregs of society etc, i sound awfall saying this and it's very politically incorrect too, but these women would've been pretty bad, liars, thiefs, beggars the lot, very low I.Qs etc, the occasional one might have been ok, but is this S.Lewis, nobody knows!

these lot would be lieing like crazy to a bunch of sharks from the tabloid press, because they'd say anything for 6 pence.

you thus have to be very careful what you believe, especially after the tabloid trash has printed extracts from the initial statements, or after they've spoken to eye witnesses... you will never get the true story from them, they will alter it to suit their purposes

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi all,

As always with press-reported witness testimony, it is essential to make allowances for the possibility of error and misinterpretation.

Hi Ben,

I think it's wise to go with the quality/reputation of the journalism purveyed by the newspaper.

Low quality such as The Star is dubious, but perhaps others with a better reputation for objective and factual reporting, are more reliable and should be treated as such.

[Wickerman]

this is total garbage ( but not from you ok)

Ok, I get it, nothing personal you mean.
:-)

``he was standing in the deceased's doorway and staring up the court as if waiting for someone.``no, he was standing outside in Dorset st as said in her statement to the police and confirmed by GH`` i also saw a man and a woman who were the worst for drink bla bla bla`no this is M.COX who saw this earlier on
now do you understand what i'm saying, this report is a pile of junk .....

How much analysis have you done over these inquest statements?
If you had done any, you would already know how many versions we are dealing with (8), and which sources they are (2 official, 6 press).

The contribution from Cox is written on the same page as that given by Lewis. How could anyone mix them up?
The Coroner asked Mary Ann Cox a series of questions, then moved onto Prater, Maxwell, then Sarah Lewis.

What the press have done is cherry-pic the replies from all the witnesses which they chose to include, or only sufficient as space permits. In order to gain a more complete picture we need to re-assemble all the responses, in this case those by Lewis, which were published.
I have been doing this but with only specifc points in order to deal with the pertinent issue of what Sarah Lewis saw in Millers Court.

It does not matter that you disagree, I don't expect any different if you have not invested any thought in the matter, or if you have an axe to grind.
Your protests so far have been just biased opinions, nothing based on factual data or alternative witness testimonies, therefore of limited value.

If you wish to debate the issue, dig up some witness statements which support your position.
I have given you mine, you give me yours, its that simple.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

If you find fault with the piecemeal presentation of her evidence in the papers, blame the press! Sarah Lewis is not at fault!

Indeed, Jon. This is precisely what I've been getting at. There is no reason for dismissing Lewis, or for assuming she told anything other than the truth. It is clear, however, that a small minority of press sources made a hash of reporting her words accurately, and the Daily News appears to have been one such offender. To be fair to Malcolm, I think this was what he was saying too, in essence.

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

The Star may have been a controversial newspaper, but it certainly wasn't "low quality". In the case of Sarah Lewis, they reported what the majority of other newspapers reported, including the Times and Daily Telegraph. No "couples" up the passage or Mrs. McCarthy mentioning "such a funny a man", or any of that nincompoopery.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Thankyou for your comments Mike.

.... I don't agree that Lewis and Kennedy are the same people, but I do believe Kennedy's testimony is not just something to be dismissed because it scares Hutchinsonians.

For the overall synthesis Lewis and Kennedy are not required to be either one or the other.
Assuming Kennedy was another name used by Lewis, we would not then discard words attributed to Kennedy just because Lewis used a different name. Both statements are from the same woman so both are equally valid.

As you know, women are known to use alternate names depending who they were talking to, nothing unusual here.


On the other hand if Kennedy was indeed another woman, her statements are just as valid as those from Lewis.
Census records demonstrate that families shared a room, or rooms, with unrelated boarders. In one case Kennedy was described as the married daughter of the Kelleghers/Gallaghers who lived in Millers Court.
While Sarah Lewis was a family friend who had come to their home because she had a row with her husband.
There's nothing suspicious here whatsoever.

So either way we should include both statements from both women.

The third alternative that Kennedy was not even present that night and made the whole thing up does not have a leg to stand on, that is what can be safely discarded.
Modern unfounded speculation is no substitute for contemporary witness claims in print.

i would also be highly suspicious of what Kennedy sais, plus seeing MJK in the morning too, ...[edit]... but these women would've been pretty bad, liars, thiefs, beggars the lot, very low I.Qs etc, the occasional one might have been ok, but is this S.Lewis, nobody knows!

these lot would be lieing like crazy to a bunch of sharks from the tabloid press, because they'd say anything for 6 pence.

Calling a witness a liar requires you to come forward with contrary evidence to substantiate your charge. Just because you 'think' they lied does not make it so.

There are some on here Malcolm who might read something they cannot explain, or what they choose not to believe, consequently 'they' reach for the "liar" card.
Its the path of least resistance.
Too many throw this "liar" charge around without the substance to back it up.

Indeed, Jon. This is precisely what I've been getting at. There is no reason for dismissing Lewis, or for assuming she told anything other than the truth. It is clear, however, that a small minority of press sources made a hash of reporting her words accurately, and the Daily News appears to have been one such offender. To be fair to Malcolm, I think this was what he was saying too, in essence.

Thats where the benefit of analysis comes in. When we compare, line by line, what was reported in the various press releases we can see how her story evolves and dovetails quite nicely with what Hutchinson claimed he did at the same time and same location.
Sarah Lewis confirms George Hutchinson with respect to events at Millers Court.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Fleets,

The Star may have been a controversial newspaper, but it certainly wasn't "low quality". In the case of Sarah Lewis, they reported what the majority of other newspapers reported, including the Times and Daily Telegraph. No "couples" up the passage or Mrs. McCarthy mentioning "such a funny a man", or any of that nincompoopery.

All the best,
Ben

The Star did not cover the course of the inquest, what they reported was brief, on the 12th it ended during Prater's testimony. On the 13th they dwell on Cox's evidence and briefly mention Hutchinson's (but not by name).
No mention of Sarah Lewis anywhere.

The Star's coverage is inferior, but to their credit by the 14th they do mention one important detail..

(Hutchinson)
"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."

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

The third alternative that Kennedy was not even present that night and made the whole thing up does not have a leg to stand on, that is what can be safely discarded.

No. This isn't remotely the case at all.

That Kennedy "made the whole thing up" is by far the simplest and most plausible explanation.

"Mrs. Kennedy" was most assuredly and emphatically NOT A genuine witness, and she was most assuredly and emphatically NOT present in Dorset Street last night. I'll guess I'll have to copy and paste my explanation from post #147 (which I'll continue to do for as long as people keep attempting to revive her as credible witness, which pretty much nobody does these days, for damnably good reason):

Mrs. Kennedy was evidently 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.

It surprises me a great deal when people dismiss the premise that she was a bogus witness as having "no legs to stand on". Nothing could be further from the truth. As Philip Sugden demonstrated very well indeed - as good as proven in my opinion, short of sickeningly improbable "coincidence" - Kennedy chinese-whispered Lewis' account, and was quickly discredited for doing so.

The statements of an inquest-attending witness and a non-inquest-attending witness are not "equally valid". Very obviously not. That's akin to saying that "Mrs. Paumier" and Joseph Lawende have "equal validity" in terms of eyewitness evidence, which is obviously nonsense.

The notion that Lewis and Kennedy were different women who had identical experiences that night, but who failed to mention one another is horribly preposterous, and is to be dismissed as such as it was in 1888. Lewis was staying in room #2 with the Keylers, not the "Gallaghers", and there is not the flimsiest chance of a room of that size being home to more than one family. The whole Kennedy nonsense was just another example of early press filth that was blissfully discarded in time for the inquest. So I suppose I'm back to my original point of two days ago - we have to be sensibly selective in the "witness" accounts we scrutinize. I get the impression that some people are trying to read "Jack the Ripper" into every mention of a scary man with a black bag.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

I agree that the Star is a valuable source. It should be treated with the same caution as other journals, but I don't understand why so many in the past (less today) were so adamant that the Star was junk, but held the Times up to high esteem, even though they offered less coverage of the murders. Far less. And what they did report was often strangely wrong (like their butchering of names). Because of this reputation, the Star is often blamed for the inconsistencies in it's Schwartz interview, when compared to Swanson's synopsis. But these detractors also fail to note the failure of all other papers in obtaining any sort of information from Schwartz.

Regarding Sarah Lewis/Mrs. Kennedy, why is in the best interest of Hutchinsonians to dismiss Kennedy? What's the trouble with her information? It seems to me that if Lewis and Kennedy were the same (as it's accepted that Mrs. Long and Mrs. Durrell were one and the same), then it would simply be a matter of working with the most reliable sources, which would probably not be the 'Mrs. Kennedy' sources. If they were two different people, then surely Lewis would trump Kennedy where they differ, as the police clearly settled on Lewis as a more reliable witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Some very good observations neatly summed up, Tom.

The Star is a valuable source, and if Lewis and Kennedy were different people, as I believe, then the former is obviously the one worth listening to, for the reasons you mention.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

I agree that the Star is a valuable source. It should be treated with the same caution as other journals, but I don't understand why so many in the past (less today) were so adamant that the Star was junk,....

Hi Tom.
I'm not so sure about holding the Times up to high esteem, that certainly was the contemporary view as espoused by the afluent members of society. The issue concerning the Star tends to stem from their cavalier approach to news gathering.
First off, all newspapers carried their share of inaccuracies, for a variety of reasons. Especially early in the first hours of a murder case.

With respect to the Star, they do a superior job at providing background, as an example their detail of the murder scene, Kelly's room.
However, a number of their stories are not given verbatim like other papers, but in paraphrase, see their treatment of Kelly's murder (Nov. 12,13,14).

As you might know the Star chose to take a confrontary attitude towards authority figures in the police force. On the one hand they were known to create a false sense of accomplishment by Scotland Yard, to be followed soon after by an equally false sense of failure. This they repeated time & again which in the end led to the police refusing to talk to Star reporters.

Certainly there was a rule that police should not discuss ongoing investigations with the press, but as we all know, rules were sometimes bent or disregarded between some police officials and select members of the press.
In the case of the Star, as their own reporters admitted, the police flat refused to talk to them. And, we have a quote from a Star editor? who admits that when the police refuse to talk "we will resort to making it up as we go".

In their defense it should be noted that the Star embraced their own brand of what was known as, New Journalism. The editor T. P. O'Connor intended to create a publication “which struck its readers right between the eyes”. We would call it “in your face journalism”. They intentionally avoid giving long transcripts from boring trials and chose instead to resort to summarize the proceedings and give some attention to any colourful characters in the courtroom.

There is nothing wrong with this if you know in advance what their priority was, sensation at the expence of accuracy. Sensation makes copy, accuracy required detail which evokes boredom which turns readers away.
As already mentioned their chief editor was T. P. O'Connor, a fervent Irish nationlist who intentionally recruited a young avant guard staff which would repeatedly call for, “..sweeping social and political reform, an overhaul of Scotland Yard, and Irish Home Rule.

The strident tone of these editorials upset the paper's wealthy Liberal investors who did not approve of bashing Gladstonianism .....”
“(As) a leading proponant of the New Journalism, this paper moved one detractor to call it, “half a joke and half a crusade”. As leader writers fired salvo after salvo into the flanks of Tory-ism and Liberalism for resisting social reform and defending the baton charges of Bloody Sunday, circulation soared”
Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Curtis, 2001, p.113.

The Star thrived on antagonistic editorials and reports that are worded with the intent of winding up public sentiment. The paper would create an article claiming an official source without naming that source because no such source existed. We can confirm this when no other paper chooses to carry the same story. Papers continually borrowed from each other, except when credibility was an issue. Unreferenced Star stories were not carried by any other of their daily contemporaries, yet the Star would sometimes borrow from other papers and reword a story to create the desired effect, antagonise the public.

With respect to exclusive Star stories, when in doubt, check them out, all caveats should be applied.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

Have you written a book on all this and quote from it when asked questions? If not, you have a gift for compiling well-structured posts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Ok, I get it, nothing personal you mean.
:-)



How much analysis have you done over these inquest statements?
If you had done any, you would already know how many versions we are dealing with (8), and which sources they are (2 official, 6 press).

The contribution from Cox is written on the same page as that given by Lewis. How could anyone mix them up?
The Coroner asked Mary Ann Cox a series of questions, then moved onto Prater, Maxwell, then Sarah Lewis.

What the press have done is cherry-pic the replies from all the witnesses which they chose to include, or only sufficient as space permits. In order to gain a more complete picture we need to re-assemble all the responses, in this case those by Lewis, which were published.
I have been doing this but with only specifc points in order to deal with the pertinent issue of what Sarah Lewis saw in Millers Court.

It does not matter that you disagree, I don't expect any different if you have not invested any thought in the matter, or if you have an axe to grind.
Your protests so far have been just biased opinions, nothing based on factual data or alternative witness testimonies, therefore of limited value.

If you wish to debate the issue, dig up some witness statements which support your position.
I have given you mine, you give me yours, its that simple.

Regards, Jon S.

GOOD GRIEF NO, i'm not attacking you at all, i'm attacking what the newspaper has said and if it has come from the newspaper, or directly from the inquest

i have not yet seen any inquest statements at all, i never even knew they were online, i'll take a look