Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

She then places the man and the woman in relation to the loiterer and/or herself: they're ahead. Since she saw the loiterer when she turned into the court, this presumably means they were walking ahead of her in the court.

Given that the passageway into Miller's Court itself was so short, I take her statement to mean that she saw the couple in Dorset Street, at some point beyond Wideawake Man and the entrance to the Court itself. If "further on" meant "between the entrance to Miller's Court and the 'courtyard' of Miller's Court", then Lewis would have bumped into and/or brushed past them on her way to the Keylers' residence, which - after all - was only a short distance inside Miller's Court itself, a short hop from Kelly's room.

"Further on", to my mind, means "further on in Dorset Street, beyond the entrance to Miller's Court".

[Wickerman]

So, Jon, your theory is that these two women with two separate abodes and separate identities, albeit that they were both staying that night with someone with a very similar surname, were both out together in Bethnal Green Road together on the Wednesday and both heard the cry of murder in Millers Court during the night?

Okay right.

So far, so good.
What is so preposterous (according to Gareth), about that?

So Mrs Kennedy must be the sister of Sarah Lewis must she not because Kennedy told the Evening News that she was out with her sister? But hold on if she's her sister then Gallagher must also be Lewis' father so suddenly Lewis is a "married daughter" of Gallagher, thus fitting the description in the newspaper article!

What were you saying about press making mistakes?
The Wednesday night accounts attributed to Kennedy all appear to read the same, so very possibly one single source - an agency story.
Whereas the accounts attributed to Lewis vary, ie; "friend", "female friend", or "another woman".
- If Kennedy was copying Lewis, why the difference in her story?
- If Kennedy was Lewis under a false name, again why the difference?

It does not matter which version is accepted, the difference is not easy explained unless these were editorial/journalistic errors, so it's what we might call 'a wash'.

Perhaps Gallagher was her pimp. Would that not solve the puzzle? Perhaps that would easily explain the variations and inconsistencies between the Kennedy and Lewis stories, yet with Lewis/Kennedy being the same person?

Conjecture is not the basis for theory, evidence is the basis for theory.
As there is no evidence Gallagher was a pimp, let alone her pimp, then any resultant theory is baseless.

When you look at it objectively it's perfectly clear that Lewis and Kennedy were the same person with Kennedy being her married name, or rather the name she preferred to use as her married name.

The objective view is to take what we read in the press concerning their identity, their abodes, & the different times of their stories.
A historians view of press accounts is no different. When no information exists to the contrary what we read is generally what we accept.
There are cases where the press print mistakes, of course, but we only know that when the alternate story surfaces. In this case there is no alternate story.
Inventing an alternate story does not replace the historical account of who these women were, no matter how much anyone objects.

[Wickerman]

But Kennedy supposedly saw Kelly. Wouldn't that be of interest since it would help establish where the victim was last seen?

I would think so, but then Schwartz did not appear at Stride's inquest, we still can't figure that one out either.
So Kennedy's none-appearance is not without parallel.
We should not forget McDonald (the coroner) was also a physician (M.D. & a Divisional Surgeon), so his relationship with Dr's Phillips & Bond may have persuaded him that Bond's estimated time of death was the yardstick to use.

And yet, Kennedy is a different name from both. It's clear (from your quote) that the woman's married name was Kennedy. Why call her Mrs. Keyler/Gallagher, then?

Not sure what you mean. Gallagher's married daughter was obviously married to a Kennedy. Her maiden name would have been Gallagher. What we don't know is if Mrs Kennedy was living at Millers Court with her husband, or was she separated from him.

I'm not talking solely about the inquest. Lewis spoke to the police as well. Why not tell them what they needed to know? And did the police just skip over this Mrs. Kennedy when trying to find witnesses? It's not like she lived very far if she lived right across from Kelly's room.

A few of the police statements taken on the 9th are brief, Lewis's is no different. As Lewis did not know Kelly, she didn't appreciate the value of what she saw. A man & woman walk up the passage was just a strange couple to her, just an everyday occurrence.
Abberline did interview Kennedy...

"Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room."
Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

This report is consistent with the Evening News account, that Kennedy was staying with her parents at Millers Court.
Abberline also interviewed Lewis.

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect Abberline to have known he was talking to the same woman, if Kennedy was Lewis
(right, David?)

I'll mention this in passing, it seems Mrs McCarthy had a customer in the shop on that morning, a customer who she did not know.

"Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her."
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

If that customer was Lewis (who was not a resident of the court, so McCarthy wouldn't know her), it might explain a few things.

You'll note that she doesn't specify the couple turned into the court and then she did and by that time they were gone. Instead, she says she saw the loiterer when she turned into the court. She then places the man and the woman in relation to the loiterer and/or herself: they're ahead. Since she saw the loiterer when she turned into the court, this presumably means they were walking ahead of her in the court.

As I keep maintaining, to get a more complete account it is necessary to collate all the inquest records, not just pick one that suits a particular theory.

The Daily News account is more complete and explains what "further on" actually meant - further on up the passage (court).
" I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
That reads pretty clear to me.

Also, it only stands to reason that if this couple turned into Millers court, then they did so from first being in Dorset Street. So it cannot be argued that this couple was in the street but not in the passage. They came from the street to the passage.

The sequence of events that you suggest is: Lewis sees a man and a woman walking ahead -> they turn into the court -> she turns into the court -> she sees the loiterer when she does this -> she doesn't see the couple in the court. That's not the order in which she presents her story and I can't see anything that indicates that we should read it out of order.

Lewis is responding to questions, her story is not a continuous narrative.
I'm not sure what you see as irregular.

Alternatively, maybe they were both right and telling the truth and Kelly left her room to go to the Britannia shortly after Hutchinson did. Who even knows at this point...

There is no overlap in time. It is not easy for us to establish accurate timelines when almost every time given is an "about", which could be as much a five or even ten minutes either way of the hour stated.

[Wickerman]

"Further on", to my mind, means "further on in Dorset Street, beyond the entrance to Miller's Court".

At what point in Dorset street was Sarah Lewis, when she first noticed this couple?
Does "further on" mean they were ahead of her just before they turned into the court?
Or, as the context of the account you were reading is that the loiterer was looking up the court (from the other side of Dorset street), and the couple walked up the passage, then they were further on up the passage, not up Dorset Street - the context is the court.
Lewis, following some distance behind this couple eventually also entered the passage, but by this time the couple must have gone indoors, as she said, "there was no-one in the court".

[David Orsam]

A police request not to speak of anything she may have heard over night is not an invitation to lie to anyone.
The police are on record as lying to the press - or at least being so accused by the press.

Example:
"The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard, denied that such an arrest had been made, but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives."
Echo, 10 Sept.

...How many of the "suspects" have been detained is, of course, unknown, inasmuch as the police are not only reticent, but really discourteous, in their demeanour towards Press inquiries.
Echo, 2 Oct.

Neither of those examples shows that the police are "on the record" as lying to the press and the second isn't even an accusation of lying, it's an accusation of them being "reticent".

[David Orsam]

"Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room."
Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

This report is consistent with the Evening News account, that Kennedy was staying with her parents at Millers Court.
Abberline also interviewed Lewis.

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect Abberline to have known he was talking to the same woman, if Kennedy was Lewis
(right, David?)

You seem to be assuming that the source of the Times report was Abberline and further that he did not know that Sarah Lewis called herself Mrs Kennedy. Too many assumptions.

But what's really interesting in the extract you've posted from the Times is that it is inconsistent with Kennedy's account in the Evening News.

Hence, from the Times:

"on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men."

From the Evening News:

"at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man"

How has one man from the Evening News multiplied into two men in the Times? And how has "the deceased" in the Evening News been downgraded to "a woman" in the Times?

There is, however, a clue in the inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis who said she saw a man standing in Dorset Street when another man with a woman passed along. This itself can be matched with her police statement in which it was originally stated that she saw the first man "talking to a female" which has been crossed out. To me the Times and Evening News are reporting a garbled version of the same incident.

And you don't seem to have clarified if Sarah Lewis was in fact Mrs Kennedy's sister, as Kennedy claimed according to the Evening News report.

[Sam Flynn]

At what point in Dorset street was Sarah Lewis, when she first noticed this couple?

Her narrative suggests that she spotted Wideawake just as she was about to enter the Miller's Court entrance, seeing the man and the woman "further on" at about the same time. This would place Lewis, Wideawake and the couple in Dorset Street.

Does "further on" mean they were ahead of her just before they turned into the court?

It may be significant that Lewis doesn't say that she actually saw the couple turn into Miller's Court.

[Wickerman]

Neither of those examples shows that the police are "on the record" as lying to the press and the second isn't even an accusation of lying, it's an accusation of them being "reticent".

Denying an arrest had been made, when the family of the arrested person confirmed it, is not lying to the press?
Explain the rationale there please David.

Yes, the second example was to demonstrate the attitude of the police towards the press (mostly from the Met.). An earlier comment from you seemed to suggest 'shock' that the police would treat the press that way.

Here is another example:

"A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded." Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct.

The lie is also quite evident, which under the circumstances may be justified (keeping the horrific details under wraps?), but the police can & did lie to the press when the circumstances suited them.

[David Orsam]

Denying an arrest had been made, when the family of the arrested person confirmed it, is not lying to the press?
Explain the rationale there please David.

I didn't say that - I said they are not "on the record" as having lied to the press in that case. As you commented yourself it was no more than an accusation that "some officials at Scotland Yard" denied the arrest.

Yes, the second example was to demonstrate the attitude of the police towards the press (mostly from the Met.). An earlier comment from you seemed to suggest 'shock' that the police would treat the press that way.

You are wrong. I didn't say anything about shock that the police would treat the press in any way. I said it would be shocking if the police asked members of the public to lie to the press.

Here is another example:

"A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded." Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct.

The lie is also quite evident, which under the circumstances may be justified (keeping the horrific details under wraps?), but the police can & did lie to the press when the circumstances suited them.

I dare say they could but asking members of the public, who were due to give evidence at a coroner's inquest, to lie to the press is another matter entirely.

[Wickerman]

You seem to be assuming that the source of the Times report was Abberline and further that he did not know that Sarah Lewis called herself Mrs Kennedy. Too many assumptions.

It might be well to remind you that the idea Lewis & Kennedy were the same is entirely an assumption, but an assumption which contradicts the historical record.
I do not "assume" the source was Abberline, the police were not talking to the press.
I do "assume" Abberline was sufficiently awake to determine if he had just interviewed the same woman twice, under a different name?

But what's really interesting in the extract you've posted from the Times is that it is inconsistent with Kennedy's account in the Evening News.

Hence, from the Times:

"on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men."

From the Evening News:

"at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man"

How has one man from the Evening News multiplied into two men in the Times? And how has "the deceased" in the Evening News been downgraded to "a woman" in the Times?

You're on the wrong track there David.
The "Respectably dressed man" was outside the Britannia, which is approx. 120ft away from Millers Court.

How can one report contradict the other when the locations are so far away from each other?

There is, however, a clue in the inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis who said she saw a man standing in Dorset Street when another man with a woman passed along. This itself can be matched with her police statement in which it was originally stated that she saw the first man "talking to a female" which has been crossed out. To me the Times and Evening News are reporting a garbled version of the same incident.

And you don't seem to have clarified if Sarah Lewis was in fact Mrs Kennedy's sister, as Kennedy claimed according to the Evening News report.

The "talking to a female" bit being crossed out looks like Abberline had confused the Britannia "man" (who was talking to a female), with the loiterer standing opposite in Dorset Street.

I fail to see why a Sarah Lewis would pose as a "Mrs Kennedy", yet claim her companion was her sister, if Lewis was Kennedy.
You have not explained that either.

[David Orsam]

It might be well to remind you that the idea Lewis & Kennedy were the same is entirely an assumption, but an assumption which contradicts the historical record.
I do not "assume" the source was Abberline, the police were not talking to the press.
I do "assume" Abberline was sufficiently awake to determine if he had just interviewed the same woman twice, under a different name?

The point is that it wasn't Abberline speaking in the Times, it was a summary by a reporter. What I'm saying is that if Miss Lewis was also Mrs Kennedy, Abberline knew it so it doesn't matter what name was used in the newspaper report,

[David Orsam]

You're on the wrong track there David.
The "Respectably dressed man" was outside the Britannia, which is approx. 120ft away from Millers Court.

How can one report contradict the other when the locations are so far away from each other?

Well if that's the case (and personally I'm sure it's the same incident) then you still have a big problem.

Because in the Evening Times, Mrs Kennedy said:

"Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before. She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed."

There's no mention of her subsequently seeing a woman talking to two men in the court.

So how does that happen? How does the Times get a completely new sighting from Mrs Kennedy on the Monday of which the Evening News was wholly unaware on the Saturday?

What must be perfectly clear to you is that we have a garbled summary of the exact same incident both of which themselves are garbled versions of the incident described by Lewis at the inquest.

[Sam Flynn]

You're on the wrong track there David.
The "Respectably dressed man" was outside the Britannia, which is approx. 120ft away from Millers Court.

It may be relevant that a couple standing outside the Britannia, seen from the viewpoint of someone near the entrance to Miller's Court, would have been "further on" in Dorset Street.

[David Orsam]

I fail to see why a Sarah Lewis would pose as a "Mrs Kennedy", yet claim her companion was her sister, if Lewis was Kennedy.
You have not explained that either.

Well it's quite simple. As you say, she and her friend were probably touting in the Bethnal Green Road. When she speaks to the police and coroner she tells the truth but when she speaks to a reporter she prefers to use a married name, to show her respectability, and claim she was with her "sister" when it was another prostitute.

Just look at what we have to accept if they are different women. We have two married women, who walk the streets together, who just happen not to be living with their husbands on the night of 8/9 November. They both, apparently by coincidence, according to you, are staying at different addresses in Millers Court that night with someone whose name (Gallagher/Keyler) is very similar and could easily be confused for the other. Despite their propensity to walk the streets together they are not together that evening but both of them on their way to Dorset Street in the early hours separately see a man with a woman in the vicinity of Millers Court. They both had restless nights that night and both heard a cry of murder, even though other local residents such a Cox and Venturney didn't hear it, not to mention Mr Gallagher or Mrs Keyler.

I just don't buy it. To me it's perfectly obvious that Miss Lewis was also known as, or called herself, Mrs Kennedy.

[Sam Flynn]

Well it's quite simple. As you say, she and her friend were probably touting in the Bethnal Green Road. When she speaks to the police and coroner she tells the truth but when she speaks to a reporter she prefers to use a married name

It's also conceivable that the papers used a pseudonym to protect their source's identity, perhaps at the latter's request.

I just don't buy it. To me it's perfectly obvious that Miss Lewis was also known as, or called herself, Mrs Kennedy.

It's also perfectly obvious that it's basically the same story. There couldn't have been two women who happened to make an impromptu visit in the middle of the night to a room opposite Kelly's, and who independently witnessed broadly the same events.