Who did Sarah See?

[Bridewell]

The Big Hand

Hi Jon,

"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.

All the best,
Ben

If the clock referred to was that on the tower of Christ Church, Spitalfields, this is entirely possible. From some vantage points it is impossible to see the bottom of the clock face. (eg from outside the Ten Bells PH - I was going to upload an image but it exceeds the limit - unless someone can advise me how to reduce it)

[Lechmere]

Ben
The inconsistency of treatment between Kennedy and Paul is more than accounted for by the relative duration of the two inquests. Paul appeared on day 3 of the Nichols inquest. Kelly’s inquest was over and done with in one day.

[Ben]

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 if that were the case, Mike, is it not extraordinary that despite both women having such incredibly similar movements and experiences on both the Wednesday and the Friday (was Mrs. Kennedy also walking the streets in the small hours of a miserable night after having "words with her husband" too?) neither woman mentioned the other in their accounts? Even more so when you consider that Kennedy wasn't called to the inquest, despite being in an ideal position to provide corroboration for Lewis' account. The only realistic options - if not the only possibilities - are that Kennedy was a false witness who parroted Lewis, or that Lewis and Kennedy were the same person, and the former makes considerably more sense, in my view.

Lewis did not claim to see anyone enter Miller's Court.

Bridewell - good point. Also, the darkness may well have impeded visibility.

Lechmere - Kennedy spoke to the press three days before the Kelly inquest, and yet did not appear at it. After Paul's press interview, he was compelled to attend the Nichols inquest. The inconsistency of treatment didn't seem to have much to do with the "relative duration of the two inquests".

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,
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.

If you mean her pre-inquest statement then there's a wealth of detail omitted from that.
If the police only made note of what was important for their enquiries then they noted that Lewis saw a man loitering in Dorset St., she heard the scream in the night, and mention was made of being accosted on Wednesday night.
Are you suggesting that only those details were important, and nothing else?

Its absence tells us quite simply that such a sighting never occurred,...

On that basis then Sarah Lewis saw nobody outside the Britannia, “it never occurred”.
So now you just created a problem for yourself. If Lewis's sighting at the Britannia never occurred (because it was not in her pre-inquest statement) then where did Mrs Kennedy get her story from?
If it did occur (because not everything was covered in that brief statement), then Lewis could easily have seen another woman standing apart from the couple outside the Britannia, but she was never specifically asked.

"Between 2.00-3.00" still encompasses the 2:30am time frame.

It also encompasses the “about 3:00 am”, suggested by Mrs Kennedy, no contradiction there either.

I can assure you that Sarah Lewis did not see any couple pass up the court.

Unfortunately Ben your assurance is emotionally based, it is not a factual determination.

In every other press report of her inquest testimony, the couple in question simply passed along Dorset Street.

Actually Ben,that is not so. Where this couple are mentioned the context is to do with the “court” and the man looking up the passage, not Dorset St..

“ another young man with a woman passed along”

“The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.”

“He seemed as if waiting for some one. Further on I saw another man and woman.”

“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.”

“She saw a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court. Later on she saw another man and a woman near the court.”

“A young man went along with a young woman.”

There is no mention of Dorset St in any of them.
When the papers write “went along” or “passed along” it is either unclear with reference to what, or the context was the passage leading to the Court. Nowhere does Lewis suggest that while walking along Dorset St. she saw a second couple.

But that didn't happen, and Lewis even stated that there was nobody in the court.

This sounds like a convenient time to throw your own words back at you. :-)

“ This was a simple instance of misreporting on the part of a single newspaper, and should not be treated as accurate.” (Ben)

Alas, I prefer not to casually dismiss that which does not fit, rather we must seek to place the comment it its proper context.

You must realize that this was in response to a question.

Question: (........?)
Answer: “There was nobody in the court. ”.

Whoever the couple were they were not looking for a dark corner in the court for a quickie. Therefore, the couple who passed up the passage went indoors and not into the court. On being asked what happened to the couple she saw pass up the passage, Lewis responded with, “there was nobody in the court”.

- Lewis confirms Hutchinson with respect to his admission to standing at Millers Court and the couple passing along the passage ahead of him.

- Hutchinson confirms Lewis that a couple did indeed pass up the passage while he stood watch at the street entrance.

It is precisely because we have Lewis seeing Hutchinson while he is watching Kelly & her client pass up the passage that we know it was no other couple.
Their stories are mutually supportive.

Lewis (aka Mrs Kennedy) apparently told the press some detail which she had not given to the authorities. Nothing suspicious about this. Schwartz, Packer & Hutchinson all gave details to the press that were not given to the police. That is simply human nature.

Now I've gone and upset Marlowe...
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“It also encompasses the “about 3:00 am”, suggested by Mrs Kennedy, no contradiction there either.”

Well, if you look at a church clock, and it reads about 2:30, it’s slightly eccentric to then record to the time as 3.00!

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

There was a wealth of peripheral detail that was absent from her police statement, only to appear at the inquest, but a sighting of Kelly at an hour critical to her murder would have constituted the most important detail in her entire testimony, and would certainly have appeared in her police statement had such a sighting occurred. You can't get more “important to their inquiries” than a sighting of the actual victim, and yet there wasn’t one referred to – quite simply because it never happened.

Conversely, a sighting of a woman not identified as Kelly, but merely talking with a man outside a nearby pub was rather less important to mention, as it may not have pertained to the murder at all. A Kelly sighting unquestionably pertained to the murder. It is possible that Lewis may have dwelt somewhat on the Wednesday episode in the aftermath of the Kelly murder, to the point of convincing herself that the black bag man from Wednesday was the black bag man from Friday. As for Kennedy, she more than likely picked up the black man story from Lewis herself in the afternoon of the 9th, along with other details.

“Unfortunately Ben your assurance is emotionally based, it is not a factual determination.”

I’m not quite sure what “emotion” I’m supposed to be expressing, but my assurance with regard to Lewis was based quite simply on the overwhelming weight of evidence. I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the intended meaning of the articles you’ve quoted. Let’s look at this one:

“The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.”

Where was the wideawake man standing? Dorset Street, not Miller’s Court. What Sarah Lewis was saying is that she saw a man loitering in Dorset Street, and that further on (in Dorset Street) there was a man and woman. Further on from where the man was standing, NOT further on from where the man was looking. Recall that she made this observation from the vicinity of the entrance to Miller’s Court. If the couple were further along the court itself, as you’re suggesting, it would have made a complete nonsense of Lewis’ unambiguous statement that there was “nobody in the court”. The court encompasses the buildings, the interconnecting passage and the wider area in front of the dwellings themselves. If you were standing in any of those three locations, you were most assuredly “in the court”.

Nowhere does Lewis suggest that while walking along Dorset St. she saw a second couple.

That's absolutely what she suggests. On the basis of the forgoing, there is simply no other explanation.

In all the literature I have read on the ripper murders, both contemporary and modern, I have only heard it suggested twice that Lewis saw a couple enter the court. The first time from that very wrong newspaper, and the second on this thread.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the intended meaning of the articles you’ve quoted. Let’s look at this one:

“The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.”

Where was the wideawake man standing? Dorset Street....

Yes he was, but he did not stay there.
When Lewis first noticed him the man was standing on the opposite side of Dorset St. directly opposite the passage to Millers Court.
After the couple had passed along the passage the man (Hutchinson) crossed the road and walked up the passage to stand in the court outside Kelly's door.

(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."

Lewis confirms this:
"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."

This is from the same article which you choose to denounce as innacurate, yet as I keep pointing out, both stories support each other.

Which means you are choosing to denounce a detail for which confirmation exists. And yet you insist on pushing an argument for which no confirmation exists (Kennedy=unreliable, etc.).

If the couple were further along the court itself, as you’re suggesting, it would have made a complete nonsense of Lewis’ unambiguous statement that there was “nobody in the court”. The court encompasses the buildings, the interconnecting passage and the wider area in front of the dwellings themselves. If you were standing in any of those three locations, you were most assuredly “in the court”.

Oh no Ben, a "Court" is an open area, a passage may lead to a court but the passage is not included in the court.
People lived in this court, no-one lived in the passage.
Nos. 27 & 26 Dorset St. were divided by the passage, these houses had a Dorset St. address. Those who lived in the Court had a Court address.
The passage connects the street to the court, no-one lived in the passage.

Here, peruse this..


The Court is clearly defined as separate from the passage. When Lewis said there was no-one in the Court she means behind Kellys room and beyond.

Lewis confirms Hutchinson & Hutchinson confirms Lewis. There is no need to add complications.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Quick question : I thought that anyone walking to Kelly's door had to walk past a door leading to the staircase of number 26 - but this door isn't marked.
How many doors were there?

[Malcolm X]

Hi Ben.



Yes he was, but he did not stay there.
When Lewis first noticed him the man was standing on the opposite side of Dorset St. directly opposite the passage to Millers Court.
After the couple had passed along the passage the man (Hutchinson) crossed the road and walked up the passage to stand in the court outside Kelly's door.

.Regards, Jon S.

this could be true, but if so then we have a massive problem with the times... ie H saw them at about 2.05 and Sarah at 2.30.
plus their descriptions vary too, especially H, because he does not say that he went up the court strait away, he remained ouside the arch of Millers court, he sais he went up the court yes this is true, but this looks like some time later on... it looks like 15 mins later

in her original statement Sarah mentions none of this, it looks like these two have added all of this stuff later on, prompted by the press, their own tittle tattle, plus talking too much to this Kennedy women

i'd love to know what these women were really like, bloody hell, i bet that they were a couple of real Bog Irish thieving Hags, almost definitely, and you Wickerman believe them !

finally, all of this actually makes GH look more guilty!

[DVV]

and you Wickerman believe them !

I too love Irish women, Irish stout, Irish whiskey.

[Wickerman]

Quick question : I thought that anyone walking to Kelly's door had to walk past a door leading to the staircase of number 26 - but this door isn't marked.
How many doors were there?

Quite correct Robert I had considered trying to edit the drawing to locate this door, but as the photo was from Tully's book I declined.
The oblong block identified as "Staircase" should show a door opening to the passage.

Quote
There are eight or ten small houses in the court, which is entered by a low archway and a narrow passage from Dorset-street, and forms a cul de sac. At the corner of Dorset-street there is a small general shop, which is tenanted by Mrs. M'Carthy, who also owns the houses in the court.
The house in which the murder was committed is entered by two doors situate on the right hand side of the passage, and has several rooms. The first door up the court from the street leads to the upper rooms, but the second door opens only into one room, which is situated on the ground floor.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Thanks Jon!

[Wickerman]

this could be true, but if so then we have a massive problem with the times... ie H saw them at about 2.05 and Sarah at 2.30.
plus their descriptions vary too, especially H, because he does not say that he went up the court strait away, he remained ouside the arch of Millers court, he sais he went up the court yes this is true, but this looks like some time later on... it looks like 15 mins later

I don't see where you arrive at that conclusion, Hutchinson told the Star this:

"...and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."

Hutchinson appears to have followed closely behind, or shortly after the couple had disappeared from view. Obviously not so close behind them so that they would see him.

Then he walked up the passage to her door:
"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."

Hutch then returned to the Street and waited for about 45 minutes, until 3:00 am. so he must have taken up his position 'on watch' about 2:15 am.

There are severe complications if we attempt to merge the two sightings (What Lewis saw by the Britannia & what Hutchinson saw in Commercial St.).
What I have been trying to settle is that there is sufficient commentary to allow us to determine that there was only one couple.
However, Hutchinson's suspect walked up from the southern end of Commercial St. from the direction of Thrawl St. where he picked up Kelly. On the other hand Sarah Lewis's "Bag-Man" was standing outside the Britannia on the north side of Dorset St. with another woman.

Were there two well-dressed men in Commercial St. that night, or is there something missing from Hutchinson's statement?

- If the Bag-man was the one who accompanied Kelly why did Hutchinson create Astrachan?

- If Astrachan truely accosted Kelly then why was Kelly seen in the vicinity of Bag-man?

Also, if Hutchinson passed the Whitechapel Church between 1:50-1:55 am, then why did it take 20-25 minutes for him to finally take up position opposite the entrance to Millers Court?

I'm not sure the intervening story would take up 20-25 minutes, I have to wonder if there is something missing.

"..... i bet that they were a couple of real Bog Irish thieving Hags, "

Have you ever considered joining the anti-discrimination league?
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Those bog Irish drunken hags in their liquored up state would no doubt mistake McCarthy with his trusty shillelagh with a leprechaun guarding a pot of gold down the nether reaches of Millers Court. Who could trust a word that drips from their foul Taig mouths? I bet they all kissed the Blarney Stone. Is it any coincidence that Blarney Castle itself was built by a McCarthy to be sure?
I’ve run out of sterotypes.

[Malcolm X]

I don't see where you arrive at that conclusion, Hutchinson told the Star this:

"...and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."

Hutchinson appears to have followed closely behind, or shortly after the couple had disappeared from view. Obviously not so close behind them so that they would see him.

Then he walked up the passage to her door:
"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."

Hutch then returned to the Street and waited for about 45 minutes, until 3:00 am. so he must have taken up his position 'on watch' about 2:15 am.

There are severe complications if we attempt to merge the two sightings (What Lewis saw by the Britannia & what Hutchinson saw in Commercial St.).
What I have been trying to settle is that there is sufficient commentary to allow us to determine that there was only one couple.
However, Hutchinson's suspect walked up from the southern end of Commercial St. from the direction of Thrawl St. where he picked up Kelly. On the other hand Sarah Lewis's "Bag-Man" was standing outside the Britannia on the north side of Dorset St. with another woman.

Were there two well-dressed men in Commercial St. that night, or is there something missing from Hutchinson's statement?

- If the Bag-man was the one who accompanied Kelly why did Hutchinson create Astrachan?

- If Astrachan truely accosted Kelly then why was Kelly seen in the vicinity of Bag-man?

Also, if Hutchinson passed the Whitechapel Church between 1:50-1:55 am, then why did it take 20-25 minutes for him to finally take up position opposite the entrance to Millers Court?

I'm not sure the intervening story would take up 20-25 minutes, I have to wonder if there is something missing.



.
Regards, Jon S.

i just dont know how you've created this mess for yourself, but lets take a close look

``. She said she had lost her handkercheif he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.``

this is a direct paste from here and it's taken from ``victims``, i'll be a bit cross if it's wrong...

ok, they went up the court.....they were thus out of sight because he was still outside in dorset st, he followed, but they had already entered her room..... he does not mention seeing her entering a room, it looks like he was inside millers court for this next 45 mins, this is bloody odd.

1.....how did he know which room they had entered ?
2.....if he heard them talking, he must have been close, how the hell did they manage to get inside her room so quickly without him seeing them, bearing in mind to get in, she has to lean through the broken window, or maybe she left the door open, because you can see her door opening from Dorset st.

3...if he was inside millers court, then Sarah will walk right past him, within 3 feet of him, how come she describes him so badly

4....but she mentions seeing him outside in Dorset st.

5.....i'm damned sure that he said that he went back outside into Dorset st.

what's wrong ?........ this website, it has the incorrect info and i cant find it quickly anymore...(when my father died of cancer i threw away all my Ripper books and redecorated my house)

but from memory i'm sure he waited outside in Dorset st...in fact i know he did, even so, it is very strange that he lost sight of them and that he went right into Millers court and waited outside her room, not knowing for sure which room they had entered, or did he wait ouside her room simply because it was at the opening to the court only and thus heard them talking inside.

1.....if he was so suspicious of him, why didn't he scare him off to protect her

2......why did he wait 45 mins because this is highly suspicious, because only a sad fool would wait this long, i'd shrug my shoulders and walk off after 5 mins

3.....BUT i'd definitely wait this long if i was spying on a girlfriend that i was suspicious of, i'd also wait this long if i was JTR and thus waiting for BLOTCHY FACE to leave.

but GH knows that she's a prostitute, so why worry or give a damn, because that's what she does and he didn't give a damn anyway when he talked to her about the six pence, so there's a massive contradiction going on here!......he sais ``sorry no money, good bye`` and then waits 45 mins, most odd indeed

it's very strange isn't it, but for GHs lie to remain constant over time, he has to tell the police how he stalked his victim and just change a few things around.

he's telling us how he stalked her, we just have to remove LA DE DA from the equation, in other words, he simply heard her singing and thus hung around millers court on and off until 4am.

the Kennedy sighting at 3am ?.... it looks like rubbish too me, at the moment!