Who did Sarah See?

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

The same may be said of the alleged sighting of Kelly at 3.00am. Since Lewis said nothing of this in her police statement or at the inquest, and claimed, conversely, not to have known the deceased at all, .....

Have you ever been to Court Ben?
Today a Solicitor/Lawyer may ask, "tell us in your own words,..etc." This did not happen at MacDonald's Inquest.

Lewis introduced herself to the Court, then was asked specific questions about the man she saw loitering in Dorset St. and his description.
Then followed questions about the Wednesday night event and the strange man who accosted her, then if she had seen him since.
Lewis had to describe her encounter with the man who was "with a woman" outside the Britannia. The Court was interested in the "man".

Most of MacDonald's questions have not survived but of what remains, subsequent to her responding to the Wednesday night occurance are:
[Coroner] Have you seen him since ? -
[Coroner] Had he the black bag ? -
[Coroner] Were the man and woman quarrelling ? -
MacDonald doesn't appear to be interested in anything else but this strange man.

Lewis was not given the opportunity to freely speak about anyone else she might have seen. We all know how swiftly the proceedings were conducted, we therefore have no reason to believe MacDonald was prepared to give Lewis any more time than was required to answer his questions.
MacDonald used a minimum number of witnesses in a minimal amount of time. It could well be MacDonald who was to blame for Kennedy not being called, assuming she was a different person.

But my point was that Kennedy, if considered truthful, would have been an essential inclusion at the inquest because of her ability to corroborate of Lewis' evidence,...

Which is one reason in favor of Lewis & Kennedy being the same person.
To me it is not important to select one position or the other, whether they were the same person or different people, their stories are both relevent & valid contributions to events that night.
I don't think we even need Hutchinson's statement, Lewis & Kennedy cover sufficient details to broadly establish a sequence of events between 2-3:00 am.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Ben
The Kelly inquest was deliberately restricted to one day – quite unlike the other ones. The primary purpose of an inquest is to determine the cause of death.
Hence the restricted pool of witnesses at the Kelly inquest. And as it was over and done with rapidly this also explains how some potential witnesses could easily have missed the whole thing.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Yes, I've been to court on jury service, but no, if Lewis mentioned nothing about seeing Kelly at 3.00am on the night of the murder at either her police interview or the inquest, then the safest explanation by far is that it never happened. Had she seen Kelly, she would have been requested to attempt an identification with the body at the morgue, but this clearly never happened. The idea that the press managed to extract the truth about a Kelly sighting where the police and coroner failed (because they never asked her about it? Despite Kelly being the central focus of the inquest? Really?) is wholly untenable, and again, if Lewis was ensconced in room #2 at 3.00am, as per her inquest and police evidence, she cannot also have been Kelly-spotting on Dorset Street at that time.

As we've seen from other eyewitness testimony, whenever there was the slightest indication that any of the women seen was the victim, it was discussed at the inquest or in the police statement. There were efforts made to ascertain whether or not Lawende's woman was Eddowes, for instance, and the same would certainly have been true of Lewis had there been any insinuation that she had seen Kelly. If, as you appear to be suggesting, MacDonald actually denied Lewis the opportunity to discuss her sighting of the actual victim, that would surely make him the absolutely unrivaled most incompetent buffoon in the annals of true crime history.

I don't agree that he used a "minimum" number of witnesses. Evidently, he made use of all witnesses whose evidence impacted on the events of Miller's Court during the small hours. If he could make use of Julia Venturney, who offered nothing in the way of observations during the crucial time-frame that night, he could certainly have made use of Kennedy, who, if truthful, could have offered vital corroboration for Lewis' evidence.

As I've argued, it is likely that Lewis and Kennedy were different people, and that the latter was simply a bogus witness who attempted to parrot off Lewis' account as her own. However, if they were the same person - a hefty "if" to my mind - then it makes no sense to accord equal validity to the Kennedy and Lewis versions as they contradict each other in several crucial areas.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

And as it was over and done with rapidly this also explains how some potential witnesses could easily have missed the whole thing.

But Lechmere, however brief the inquest was in comparison to others, it was still conducted three days after the murder. Unless there was something seriously wrong with these "potential witnesses", there was no valid reason for them to have "missed the whole thing". Anyway, as we know, Kennedy was blabbing to the press in the late afternoon or evening of the 9th November, so there was no chance of her "missing" anything.

[Lechmere]

Ben
I will refer you to the Robert Paul story in the Lloyds Weekly of 30th September for why potential witnesses didn't like appearing at inquests.

[Wickerman]

The idea that the press managed to extract the truth about a Kelly sighting where the police and coroner failed (because they never asked her about it?

Ah, then let me suggest you read, Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Curtis, 2001.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/pdf/0300088728.pdf

Which raises the fact that much initial investigation was done by the press, where the Met. were only able to follow up on their lead.
One immediate example, does the Packer incident ring any bells?
It is a fact that the press, for all their faults, did advance the cause of investigation more than once.

If, as you appear to be suggesting, MacDonald actually denied Lewis the opportunity to discuss her sighting of the actual victim, that would surely make him the absolutely unrivaled most incompetent buffoon in the annals of true crime history.

Let me quote what MacDonald said in his summing up.

"My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases, and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expense and trouble."

Coroner MacDonald had his hand firmly on the coffers.

MacDonald's impatience was further demonstrated by him insisting..
"It is quite sufficient if they find out what the cause of death was. It is for the police authorities to deal with the case and satisfy themselves as to any person who may be suspected later on."

The inquest was speedily conducted, beginning at 11:00 am, the Jury was taken to view the body, then to Millers Court, and returned to Shoreditch Townhall by 12:00 noon.
After introductions 8 witnesses were interviewed, followed by a brief adjournment, after which 4 more witnesses took the stand.
MacDonald then gave his summing-up, perhaps the whole inquest concluded by 5:00 pm?

Yes, I am saying Sarah Lewis & every other "citizen" witness was ushered through in a most expedient time as possible. MacDonald was duly criticized at the time, as you well know.
An inquest which should have lasted days was concluded in hours, as a consequence we can only imagine how much was overlooked or leads not pursued, but then, it was not his purview.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

An inquest which should have lasted days was concluded in hours, as a consequence we can only imagine how much was overlooked or leads not pursued, but then, it was not his purview.

Yes. This was something that I brought up earlier on this thread... or another, that was was asked was directly taken from police questioning and there were no opportunities to add to or take away from a statement. As you quoted, all that was necessary was to find out how the victim died. I'd even suggest that the haste in which all was performed combined with the coroner's obvious desire to get out of there, would have made it uncomfortable for anyone to say anything other than what they were told to, and would have made it nearly impossible for anyone to come forward with any new information for fear of being chastised. It's possible the guards outside were even told to keep people away. Poor Topping was probably beside himself.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

If Sarah Lewis had spotted a women she identified as Kelly on Dorset Street at 3.00am, the coroner and certainly the police would have extracted this information from her. It is impossible to accept otherwise, and that's no exaggeration. I don't dispute that the police occasionally followed up on leads that were initiated by the press, but that does not mean that the former would miss out on the most crucial elements associated with that lead purely as a result of haste. Similarly, it is impossible to accept that Lewis didn't divulge the ever-so-slightly crucial detail about seeing the victim that night just because she wasn't asked about it (!).

What is clear from other ripper victim inquests is that the coroner sought to establish whether or not any of the women sighted by eyewitnesses was the victim, which is why we hear Lawende outlining his belief that his woman wore the same clothes as the deceased, and why Elizabeth Long spoke of her visit to the morgue to see Chapman. Same with PC Smith, William Marshall and others. Had there been any consideration that Lewis had seen Kelly, there would have been a similar dialogue at the inquest, as well as a prior attempt to identify the body.

To be honest, I'm truly amazed that this obvious reality is under dispute.

It wasn't just the inquest that addressed Lewis' evidence either. You quote MacDonald as follows:

It is for the police authorities to deal with the case and satisfy themselves as to any person who may be suspected later on

Correct, MacDonald, and we know that Lewis was "dealt with" by the police. She was interviewed on the morning of the 9th, and signed a police statement. Are you suggesting that the police also goofed up appallingly badly, and failed to ascertain that Lewis had seen Kelly, purely as a result of not asking the pertinent question?

As I've mentioned already, Lewis stated to the inquest that she was able to pinpoint the time of 2:30am from the clock of Christ Church, Spitalfields. She would therefore have been in room #2 at 3.00am according to her sworn evidence. Had she then claimed at that same inquest that she had actually been in Dorset Street at 3.00am, she would have contradicted her own evidence in a very glaring and obvious manner.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Lechmere,

I'm sure a lot of witnesses don't "like" attending murder inquests, but that didn't stop Robert Paul from both giving his evidence in advance of, and appearing at, the inquest into Nichols' death.

[Lechmere]

Paul was vitually forced to attend the inquest Ben - have you read the press report?
He did like giving newspaper interviews. That is a different matter - he may even have been paid for them.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
If Sarah Lewis had spotted a women she identified as Kelly on Dorset Street at 3.00am, the coroner and certainly the police would have extracted this information from her.

I wouldn't assume the police did not have that information.
On the other hand I would prefer to think that the police were in possession of considerably more information about what happened that night than what has survived associated with the inquest. Remember the police had over fifty witness statements.

What is clear from other ripper victim inquests is that the coroner sought to establish whether or not any of the women sighted by eyewitnesses was the victim, which is why we hear Lawende, etc. etc.

Agreed, no question.
It is a travesty that Wynne Baxter did not conduct the Kelly inquest. For all his failings, his vivid imagination only equalled by his vivid mode of dress, at least he was thorough and made every effort to arrive at a complete picture.

She was interviewed on the morning of the 9th, and signed a police statement. Are you suggesting that the police also goofed up appallingly badly, and failed to ascertain that Lewis had seen Kelly, purely as a result of not asking the pertinent question?

Not at all. Neither would I suggest that every fact the police had gained in their investigations over the previous three days had been divulged at the inquest.
This was not a murder trial. The police were in possession of considerably more facts than we read of at the inquest.

Ben, let me try explain something.
It has been argued that Hutchinson gained much of the detail of his story from witnesses after the inquest had terminated.
Hutchinson claimed that the stranger & Kelly walked down the passage into Millers Court.
Where did he get this from?
Either he truly witnessed this, or he heard it from the witnesses after the inquest, therefore it must have truly been spoken by Lewis at the inquest.

Either case, it must have occurred.

The suggestion by Lewis that she saw a couple walk down the passage while the loiterer stood on watch only appeared in print after Hutchinson gave his statement to the police.
Therefore, like it or not, Sarah Lewis 'must' have seen the couple in the passage so must have told the truth.

This means that Kelly and a man were together in the passage that morning.

You have two choices, you can believe Astrachan really existed and he was the “well-dressed” man who was with Kelly that morning, or you can believe Mrs Kennedy (aka Lewis) who said she saw Kelly with a “well-dressed” man outside the Britannia.

Sarah Lewis cannot be faulted on that point, and you say yourself that she told the truth, in your opinion.
So where did Kelly's 'client' come from? Its one or the other Ben.

As I've mentioned already, Lewis stated to the inquest that she was able to pinpoint the time of 2:30am from the clock of Christ Church, Spitalfields.

Yes, funny how she was not that sure on Friday in her pre-inquest statement. How did “between 2:00 and 3:00” suddenly turn into “2:30 by the Spitalfields Church Clock”, makes it sound kind of final.
Did she feel pressured to pick a time and make it sound convincing, when in reality she was not so sure?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I wouldn't assume the police did not have that information.

But the police clearly did not have that information, otherwise such a crucial detail of Lewis spying Kelly with a man on Dorset Street at 3.00am would most assuredly have appeared in the body of her police statement. Its absence tells us quite simply that such a sighting never occurred, and moreover, Lewis makes it quite clear that she was indoors at that time. You're quite right to observe that she was more specific at the inquest when recounting the time at which she entered Dorset Street, but greater specificity is not a contradiction. "Between 2.00-3.00" still encompasses the 2:30am time frame. Possibly the big hand wasn't quite on the dot of half-past, creating uncertainty and causing her to be more vague.

I can assure you that Sarah Lewis did not see any couple pass up the court. This was a simple instance of misreporting on the part of a single newspaper, and should not be treated as accurate. In every other press report of her inquest testimony, the couple in question simply passed along Dorset Street. Same with her police statement. Had it been otherwise, the coroner would have taken a far greater interest in the appearance of both halves of the couple, and Lewis would have been requested to attempt an identification with the body. We already know that a great deal of attention was paid to Blotchy, who entered the court much earlier, and one would expect an equal or greater degree of interest in Lewis' young man with an "in-drink" woman had there been any suggestion that they entered Miller's Court. But that didn't happen, and Lewis even stated that there was nobody in the court.

This "passing along" couple, incidentally, were a separate pair from the black bag man and his female companion, who were conversing together "near the market" and outside the Britannia. This was a non coat-wearing man who might have been the same person that accosted her and a companion on Bethnal Green Road the previous Wednesday. If so, he was around 40 years old (so not a "young man" like the male half of couple #2), was not described anywhere as "well-dressed", and evidently had nothing to do with the murders.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

The point here (at least my point) is that Paul showed no hesitancy in making himself and his evidence known in advance of the inquest, and nor did Kennedy. If the latter was considered a genuine witness, she would have been compelled to attend just as Paul was, but she wasn't.

[The Good Michael]

The suggestion by Lewis that she saw a couple walk down the passage while the loiterer stood on watch only appeared in print after Hutchinson gave his statement to the police.

Jon,

I will paraphrase what I have read: Lewis said she saw a couple further on and that there was no one in the Court. This means to me that if she saw Hutchinson, it was before the couple entered the Court and it is even possible that this couple were a different one from that which Hutchinson says he saw enter the Court.

If this is Kennedy's sister, and she was going to the Keyler's (keeley's?) house, she could have seen the very same couple that Kennedy saw and that she preceded into the Court. But, a lot of couples probably went down the street in that area especially with its proximity to the Britannia.

Cheers,

Mike

[Abby Normal]

I wouldn't assume the police did not have that information.
On the other hand I would prefer to think that the police were in possession of considerably more information about what happened that night than what has survived associated with the inquest. Remember the police had over fifty witness statements.



Agreed, no question.
It is a travesty that Wynne Baxter did not conduct the Kelly inquest. For all his failings, his vivid imagination only equalled by his vivid mode of dress, at least he was thorough and made every effort to arrive at a complete picture.



Not at all. Neither would I suggest that every fact the police had gained in their investigations over the previous three days had been divulged at the inquest.
This was not a murder trial. The police were in possession of considerably more facts than we read of at the inquest.

Ben, let me try explain something.
It has been argued that Hutchinson gained much of the detail of his story from witnesses after the inquest had terminated.
Hutchinson claimed that the stranger & Kelly walked down the passage into Millers Court.
Where did he get this from?
Either he truly witnessed this, or he heard it from the witnesses after the inquest, therefore it must have truly been spoken by Lewis at the inquest.

Either case, it must have occurred.

The suggestion by Lewis that she saw a couple walk down the passage while the loiterer stood on watch only appeared in print after Hutchinson gave his statement to the police.
Therefore, like it or not, Sarah Lewis 'must' have seen the couple in the passage so must have told the truth.

This means that Kelly and a man were together in the passage that morning.

You have two choices, you can believe Astrachan really existed and he was the “well-dressed” man who was with Kelly that morning, or you can believe Mrs Kennedy (aka Lewis) who said she saw Kelly with a “well-dressed” man outside the Britannia.

Sarah Lewis cannot be faulted on that point, and you say yourself that she told the truth, in your opinion.
So where did Kelly's 'client' come from? Its one or the other Ben.



Yes, funny how she was not that sure on Friday in her pre-inquest statement. How did “between 2:00 and 3:00” suddenly turn into “2:30 by the Spitalfields Church Clock”, makes it sound kind of final.
Did she feel pressured to pick a time and make it sound convincing, when in reality she was not so sure?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

Ben, let me try explain something.
It has been argued that Hutchinson gained much of the detail of his story from witnesses after the inquest had terminated.
Hutchinson claimed that the stranger & Kelly walked down the passage into Millers Court.
Where did he get this from?
Either he truly witnessed this, or he heard it from the witnesses after the inquest, therefore it must have truly been spoken by Lewis at the inquest.

Either case, it must have occurred.

Sorry Wickerman-this is wrong and there is obviously another explanation.
As you say, Hutch could have heard SL's and others inquest testimony.
Knowing that he was there and seeing SL walk in the court, he knew that he could safely makeup his story (if he did) and no other testimony could contradict it. So the third option is that he made up the couple (A-man and Mary Kelly) walking into the court all on his own.