Who did Sarah See?

[Rubyretro]

rather than a cocky smart arse Estate Agent!

As usual, I loathe to agree with Lechmere, but I will have to grit my teeth and
admit that a "cocky smart arse" Ex-Estate agent is probably far more dangerous.

[Lechmere]

Potentially lethal I reckon. Positively deadly.
But not an 'out early' type - that would suit a carman for example.

An estate agent, ex or not, is more likely to be found amongst the ranks of the 'out late' mob.

But an 'out late' kinda guy is liable to be worse for wear - drink wise and tiredness wise. More likely to make mistakes and get caught.
My money is on a fresh, as a newly picked daisy from a summer's meadow, 'out early' fellow - for this case anyway.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Apologies for the late reply.

“When Lewis first noticed him the man was standing on the opposite side of Dorset St. directly opposite the passage to Millers Court.”

Sarah Lewis only noticed the wideawake man once, as he was standing by the lodging house in Dorset Street. This was according to her sworn inquest testimony and police statement. Had she seen this man subsequently, we would have heard about it from more sources than just the Daily News. But as it stands, it was this newspaper alone that attributed to Lewis a sighting of a man in the doorway of the deceased room, and this fact should inform us immediately that this newspaper was simply in error. I just don’t understand why you never make a single allowance for the possibility of journalistic error, as so obviously occurred in this case. This statement you keep quoting:

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

…is factually in error. Sarah Lewis did not, in fact, utter these words. The newspaper is wrong – definitely wrong. Why? Because it contradicts all other sources, including the police statement, which has wideawake man standing in a completely different location, i.e. next to Crossingham’s lodging house. And what a surprise, this is the same newspaper that reported the equally false detail regarding a couple passing “up the court”, i.e. when the man standing in Kelly’s doorway was already there! In addition, Sarah Lewis’s name is spelt incorrectly as is Keyler’s (given as "Keiller").

You say “When Lewis first noticed him the man was standing on the opposite side of Dorset St”, but the Daily News article, which you treat as accurate, does not even recall this detail. They only record the man’s location as the doorway of the deceased’s house, thus establishing their total wrongness beyond any question.

“The Court is clearly defined as separate from the passage”

Not it is not.

It is clearly defined as part of the Court, just as “window” and “pump” and “tenement houses” were part of Miller’s Court. The sign above the arch read Miller’s Court, and the moment you passed under that arch you were in Miller’s Court. You may as well look at a ship’s funnel and argue that it is “clearly defined as separate” from the ship, and be just as wrong.

“When Lewis said there was no-one in the Court she means behind Kellys room and beyond.”

No, she doesn’t. She even used “up the court” in your Daily News version

She means the entire thing, passage and all. If there was somebody standing outside the deceased room at 2:30am (there definitely wasn’t), and two people passing “up the court” at the same time (there definitely weren’t), that would mean that three people were “in the court”, as opposed to the nobody” she specified in all other, much more reliable, reports on her evidence.

Happy new year.

Ben

[Wickerman]

Happy New Year Ben.

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.
I knew I'd seen something in the past, but just yesterday I found it again.

When I wrote:
“The Court is clearly defined as separate from the passage"

You replied..

Not it is not.

Here is a near contemporary (1878) description of the Court and its dimensions, where it starts and where it finished.
And, more importantly, that the passage is not considered as part of the Court.

"The court contains six houses, and is about 50 feet long, 5 feet 6 inches wide at the north end, and 7 feet 10 inches wide at the south end, and is approached by a covered entrance 26 feet 4 inches long and 2 feet 10 inches wide.
At the north end of the court there are three public privies, and at the south end there is a public dust-bin, both of which are within a few feet of the school-room in question."

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/millerscourt1878.html

The passage is not part of the Court, so sayeth the Whitechapel Board of Works.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

The passage is not part of the Court, so sayeth the Whitechapel Board of Works.

That's not what they sayeth at all, Jon.

The sign above the arch said Miller's Court. When you venture under the arch, you're in Miller's Court. Obviously you can't sleep comfortably in a passage for the night (in the sense that you're "in" a hotel), but it was obviously, factually, a part of Miller's Court. One of the doors attached to that passage actually led to the rooms. Difficult to get more attached to the court than that.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

...One of the doors attached to that passage actually led to the rooms. Difficult to get more attached to the court than that.

Hi Ben.
It is not where the side door leads that matters, it is where the postal address is for the room(s), and the front rooms are addressed to Dorset St. Kelly's room is addressed to Millers Court.
There is no address within the passage, the Court only begins at the north end of the passage, which is the south end of the Court.
That much is settled.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

That much is settled.

Settled insofar as the passage was definitely part of the court, yes. Settled insofar as Sarah Lewis would have been an eccentric individual indeed to observe that there was "no-one in the court" if she was actually looking into the court and saw people in the Miller's Court passage. "No-one in the court" from the perspective of Dorset Street clearly meant nobody beyond that "Miller's Court" sign.

Cheers,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I rather doubt that Lewis was privy to the Board of Works definition and would almost certainly have colloquially referred to the passage and residential area beyond as all being ‘Millers Court’.
But I rather think this is a matter of little importance to understanding the case.

[Ben]

I agree with both points entirely, Lechmere.

[DVV]

Who did Sarah see ?

Fleming. But I don't want to disturb good friends.

[Wickerman]

I rather doubt that Lewis was privy to the Board of Works definition and would almost certainly have colloquially referred to the passage and residential area beyond as all being ‘Millers Court’.

Lechmere.
The colloquial references to the passage as "Court" is not the issue, of course they do. There's no disagreement on that point, the issue is a little deeper than that.
Sarah Lewis mentioned the "court" in at least three separate instances, the question is when did she mean "court" and when did she mean "passage"?

But I rather think this is a matter of little importance to understanding the case.

Petty trivia seems to proliferate these boards, you should be use to it by now.
That said, what might be of importance is that Sarah Lewis confirms Hutchinson to a degree.

Lewis (as you know) saw a man on watch:

"The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for some one to come out,.."

Confirming Hutchinson's claim.

Lewis also claims to see a couple walking ahead of him, in the passage.

"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

But where did this couple go?, in response to a question at the inquest Lewis then said:

"There was nobody in the court."


The man "looking up the court", is actually looking up the passage.

Then we have the couple "pass up the court", did she mean pass "up the passage", or, "up the court" because the Court is the open area after the passage. Which is the fact that I chose to demonstrate.

In this case we know she means pass "up the passage", because Lewis is also known to have said:

"There was nobody in the court."

This sequence makes is clear that Lewis saw two people walk up the passage and that they did not stay in the open Court for a 'quick liason' behind Kelly's room.
The obvious implication is this couple went indoors.

We don't need Hutchinson's story, Sarah Lewis saw him standing in Dorset St., she also saw the man & woman pass up the passage ahead of him, and she also confirmed this couple had gone indoors.
Thats pretty much all we need, if you don't think that has any importance then we disagree, it has significant importance especially for Hutchinson's claim.

It's a shame Lewis was not asked to describe how the man, with the woman, was dressed.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Sarah Lewis did not see anyone head up the passage. Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter Miller's Court. This is abundantly clear from all reliable sources that provide her evidence. That "pass up the court" reference only appeared in one newspaper - the "Daily News", which also confused other details such as the correct surname of the couple Sarah Lewis stayed with, i.e. Keyler and not Keiller. All other sources make if perfectly clear that the "in drink" couple had nothing to do with the court, but simply passed along Dorset Street. Had it been otherwise, the authorities would have been at great pains to identify the female half of that couple, and would probably have asked Lewis to attend the mortuary.

Sarah Lewis observed that there was "nobody in the court" which obviously - very obviously - meant that she saw nobody beyond the Miller's Court sign in Dorset Street. Nobody in the passage, nobody in the wider part of the court beyond Kelly's room, and certainly nobody entering Kelly's room.

Whatever the identity of the man "looking up the court", Lewis' comments clearly demonstrate that she considered the passage part of the court.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

it's highly likely that MJK had many admirers.

So many admirers that she couldn't pay the rent, Malcolm.
For all we know, there were only two guys in her life : a fish porter recently fired out and a plasterer dossing nearby.
She was no Louise Brooks, whatever Dew wrote in his memoirs, and that explains why she was living in Dorset Street.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

So many admirers that she couldn't pay the rent, Malcolm.
For all we know, there were only two guys in her life : a fish porter recently fired out and a plasterer dossing nearby

.

Well, she had so many 'admirers' that she was referred to as a prostitute, had rows with Joe Barnett over her prostitution, Blotchy apparently 'admired'
her enough to come round late at night with a pail of beer, and nobody
defended her reputation when Hutchinson asserted that she picked up Astro Man in the street and took him home.

If she couldn't pay the rent, it's because she spent the money she earned on things other than her rent.