A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Garry Wroe]

Both women saw this "Britannia-man", but Lewis only saw one woman in his company at 2:30. Mrs Kennedy saw this same woman but also Mary Kelly had just appeared, about 3:00. This exonerates Astrachan, and sadly for a few, also Mr Hutchinson.

Mary Kelly had just appeared?

Kennedy named neither woman she claimed to have seen, Jon. Nor did she infer that either of them was Mary Kelly. This is your assumption, based in no small measure upon Kennedy's assertion that the second woman was hatless. Unfortunately you continue to ignore the evidence of Elizabeth Prater that Kelly was wearing a hat on the night under scrutiny.

[Wickerman]

Mrs. Kennedy identified Kelly by name as the women outside the Britannia. Contrast this with Sarah Lewis who made it very clear that she "did not know the deceased". Far from "adding nothing" Kennedy's identification of Kelly on the streets at 3.00am would have ensured her a place at the inquest had her evidence been taken seriously, but her conspicuous absence from it - along with the other reasons I've just outlined (and which frankly, should put an end to the matter) - tells us that she wasn't.

Not at all Ben, you are missing the point, there was no reason to reject her statement, it conflicts with nothing.
Mrs Kennedy did not see Kelly enter the scene of the crime with a man, Lewis did, that makes a significant difference as to establishing time of death. Also, Kennedy gave an estimate of the time "about 3 o'clock". Lewis made reference to the clock in her statement, more certain.

Modern commentators have typically assumed the times were the same, therefore the women were the same, you know this. Did Macdonald make the same assumption?, its difficult to say he did not when we know it has been true among commentators for half a century.

Macdonald reads all the statements and chooses his witnesses, and we can see in his case he kept his choices to an absolute minimum. This has been debated several times.

The reporters knew who was 'parroting' stories, and they did not report those versions, they say as much themselves. It does you no good to try to claim they did print them when they tell us otherwise.

There are ten newspapers which told Kennedy's story on the 10th, the same day your trusty source, The Star, (being one of them) explained that their reporter had sorted out the 'parroters' from the original.
They only published the original - Mrs Kennedy's version.

Subsequently, Kennedy's version is repeated on the 12th by three papers, then on the 14th and finally on the 17th by two others.
No-one published a 'parroted' version, only the original.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

As did Mrs Maxwell?

Indeed, and despite the evident acceptance on the part of the police that her evidence was wrong, she was still in attendance at the inquest and still supplied a police statement. Whatever they thought of her evidence, the police still felt it was honestly imparted.

Regards,
Ben

[Bridewell]

Mrs. Kennedy identified Kelly by name

As did Mrs Maxwell?

[Ben]

Mrs. Kennedy identified Kelly by name as the women outside the Britannia. Contrast this with Sarah Lewis who made it very clear that she "did not know the deceased". Far from "adding nothing" Kennedy's identification of Kelly on the streets at 3.00am would have ensured her a place at the inquest had her evidence been taken seriously, but her conspicuous absence from it - along with the other reasons I've just outlined (and which frankly, should put an end to the matter) - tells us that she wasn't.

[Bridewell]

MUST Have been?

Anyone whose “eyewitness account” was both suspiciously similar in content to Lewis’ AND discarded before the inquest MUST have been one of the plagiarizing woman referred to in the Star.

An inquest witness whose evidence duplicates that of another in every material particular might not be called for that very reason - that her testimony adds nothing. The fact that her evidence was not used is some way from being proof that it was deemed worthless and therefore discarded . It may have been so, but that's not the certainty you claim it to be, in my submission.

Where's the reliable evidence for this? She may have told the press that she did, but that doesn't make it true.

"Plagiarising women" were referred to in The Star but that doesn't make that true, unless you are going to claim that The Star was in every way a reliable source.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Ben, the error which has been accepted for too long is the struggle to accept one of two scenario's.
1) Whether Sarah Lewis was also Mrs Kennedy, or..
2) Whether Lewis and Kennedy were separate women who arrived together, the difference in their stated times being just honest mistakes.

No.

The error is accepting either of the above scenarios, because both of them are highly unlikely, with an option on impossible in the latter case. There is no "mystery" any longer concerning Mrs. Kennedy - or at least there shouldn't be.

The Star observed on the 10th November that the one of the witnesses’ who heard a “Murder!” cry had had her account copied by “half a dozen” women who tried to retail it as their own experience. As Philip Sugden pointed our, the original witness was most assuredly Sarah Lewis. What proves beyond reasonable doubt that both the Star’s journalist and Sugden were correct in their estimation are the press accounts provided by a handful of other female "witnesses" who did not appear at the inquest, which were suspiciously similar in content to Sarah Lewis’ statement. The inescapable deduction is that these female witnesses were among the “half a dozen” women reported by the Star to have plagiarized Lewis’ account, and the one who did so most obviously was "Mrs. Kennedy".

It is clear that while Lewis herself observed the strict reticence that was requested of her by the police, and avoided direct communication with the press, she clearly did discuss her experiences with other women, Kennedy apparently amongst them. Fortunately, Kennedy's game was apparently cottoned onto very quickly, which is why she did not appear at the inquest.

Anyone whose “eyewitness account” was both suspiciously similar in content to Lewis’ AND discarded before the inquest MUST have been one of the plagiarizing woman referred to in the Star. Kennedy fits the bill like a glove.

The idea that these were two separate, genuine women whose accounts were unbelievably similar is nightmarishly implausible for the obvious reason that they could not have failed to encounter each other in the same tiny bedroom, no. 2, which was the same size as Kelly's! "Hey Sarah, I've just walked here in the small hours, in the pissing rain, passing a scary man who accosted me on Wednesday, and now here I am at the Keylers. What - you as well? Snap! What are the odds!?"

Just...no.

Nothing Kennedy says is contradicted by the testimony of others, but I suspect her statement does play havoc with preconceived notions.

But, remember, that's not how evidence is assessed, Jon. We don't open the floodgates to all sorts of crap just because it isn't contradicted by other reports. We assess it on its own merits, or woeful lack thereof in this case. We examine its provenance, and observe whether or not it was taken seriously at the time.

I understand well enough that you choose to dismiss Mrs Kennedy because she was not called to the inquest, even though she did talk with the police.

Where's the reliable evidence for this? She may have told the press that she did, but that doesn't make it true.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

The only witness to "Britannia man" was Sarah Lewis, Jon.

Ben, the error which has been accepted for too long is the struggle to accept one of two scenario's.
1) Whether Sarah Lewis was also Mrs Kennedy, or..
2) Whether Lewis and Kennedy were separate women who arrived together, the difference in their stated times being just honest mistakes.

Given that Lewis only saw one man & one woman outside the Britannia at 2:30, yet Mrs Kennedy saw one man & two women outside the Britannia half an hour later at about 3:00, the likelyhood is that they were two separate women heading for the same address, who saw something different half an hour apart.

Both women saw this "Britannia-man", but Lewis only saw one woman in his company at 2:30. Mrs Kennedy saw this same woman but also Mary Kelly had just appeared, about 3:00. This exonerates Astrachan, and sadly for a few, also Mr Hutchinson.

I understand well enough that you choose to dismiss Mrs Kennedy because she was not called to the inquest, even though she did talk with the police. But you have never explained on what basis, other than your preference to call her a liar. That is not sufficient for the simple reason it is only an opinion. In this case your opinion. Nothing Kennedy says is contradicted by the testimony of others, but I suspect her statement does play havoc with preconceived notions.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

The only witness to "Britannia man" was Sarah Lewis, Jon. There is no evidence that anyone else saw this person. Mrs. Kennedy was a plagiarist who heard about Lewis' account and attempted to pass it off as her own. She doesn't "corroborate" anything, and nor does "Mrs. Paumier" whose name only appeared in the press around the 10th November before sinking without trace very shortly thereafter, probably because she too was exposed as bogus. Even if she wasn't, there's no evidence that the man she allegedly saw had anything to do with the "Britannia man" seen by Sarah Lewis.

Lets look at Mary Kelly, is 5ft 7inch "Tall" or "Short" ?

Tall for a woman.

Most definitely. Taller than average at least.

The fact that she may also have been "stout" has nothing to do with it. Pheonix and Prater are obviously in agreement. The only "odd one out" is Maxwell, but then doubt remains over whether she actually saw Kelly.

Whether 5 ft 6 in, or 5 ft 7 in, is Tall or Short depends on the perspective of the witness

No it doesn't. One can confuse a person of average height with a tall or short person, but you're extremely unlikely to confuse a tall person with a short one. That's just obvious.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

If you were 5' 2'' you might describe him as tall if he were 5' 6-7'', "Tall" is still a relative term.
Tall, is like dark, or large, or old, or cool - we always ask, compared to what?

Here's a perfect example why we cannot dismiss a suspect soley on arguable details provided by different witnesses.

Lets look at Mary Kelly, is 5ft 7inch "Tall" or "Short" ?

"Mrs Phoenix stated Kelly was "5 feet 7 inches in height, and of rather stout build..."

"Mrs Prater described her as tall, pretty, "fair as a lilly,"..."

Mrs Maxwell described her as "a pleasant little woman, rather stout,...



Then we have our elusive Britannia-man who is also described as 5 ft 7 inch in height.

Mrs Kennedy said he was about five feet seven inches high, wore a short jacket,....

Sarah Lewis said he was a short, pale-faced man with a black moustache...

Mrs Paumier said he was about five feet six inches high,..

Which brings us to the man arrested for accosting women..
A tall middle-aged man with a dark moustache accosted two girls and spoke to them in a rather brutal way...


Whether 5 ft 6 in, or 5 ft 7 in, is Tall or Short depends on the perspective of the witness, and in the case of this "Britannia-man", he always wore a hat so estimates of his height are precisely that, estimates.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your question Droy, but with respect to Abberline and Reid and the hand picked team under Abberline I mentioned, here's a snippet from The Times on November 12th;

"Since the murders in Berner-street, St. George's, and Mitre-square, Aldgate, on September 30, Detective-Inspectors Reid, Moore, and Nairn, and Sergeants Thicke, Godley, M'Carthy, and Pearce have been constantly engaged, under the direction of Inspector Abberline (Scotland-yard), in prosecuting inquiries, but, unfortunately, up to the present time without any practical result. As an instance of the magnitude of their labours, each officer has had, on average, during the last six weeks to make some 30 separate inquiries weekly, and these have had to be made in different portions of the metropolis and suburbs. Since the two above-mentioned murders no fewer that 1,400 letters relating to the tragedies have been received by the police, and although the greater portion of these gratuitous communications were found to be of a trivial or even ridiculous character, still each one was thoroughly investigated. On Saturday many more letters were received, and these are now being inquired into. The detective officers, who are now subjected to a great amount of harassing work, complain that the authorities do not allow them sufficient means with which to carry on their investigations."

I found it interesting that Abberline would be supervising a small group within the scope of the larger investigation and his responsibilities overall.

Since Abberline and many other officers cut their investigative teeth on the streets of Whitechapel/Spitalfields their efforts directed at uncovering the Irish self rule factions and people within those boundaries, I would imagine its that kind of expertise that is being utilized by this group.

One of the reasons I started this thread was to see if pointing out the unusual methodology of access here, as compared with previous Ripper victims, might cause some members to re-visit some of the more interesting particulars with this murder. One of them is the interest of The Royal Irish constabulary in this murder and crime scene. And Parliament. The closeness of George Hutchinsons description to a prominent Fenian and someone Abberline would have been familiar with, as is the description of the mans Ms Cox sees Mary her. The event happening on Mayors Day, During the Parnell Commission. The fact that a Senior Official was on record for an opinion that the same prominent Fenian, the one that Astrakan Man strongly resembles, was Jack the Ripper. The fact that the plot to kill Lord Balfour by Irish Self Rule factions was ongoing and being investigated by some of the senior police officials assigned to the Ripper cases.

Marys alleged background story hasnt been proven in 125 years, we really dont know who she was. When someone cannot be identified within the conventional record search parameters, despite the efforts of members who are some of the finest researchers anywhere, one has to wonder why.

And she is the only Ripper victim that very probably freely invited her killer into her home.

Its obvious that I dont know precisely what went on, who were the key players, and what the reasons were for the above anomalies, ....... thats why I opened the discussion. See what kinds of ideas are out there.

My best regards...and sorry for the lack of brevity.

[DRoy]

I don't know, it was just a thought... I just do not think it necessary to assume the name "Harris" in your article was a pseudonym.
Did your article say that it was?

Hi Jon,

"When the friend mentioned the name we were aware that we had fallen into good hands, since Inspector Harris – I may as well call him Harris, as I am ready to swear if necessary that there is no such person..."

This is from the same article. I've read the article over and over to either prove or disprove Harris is actually Reid. I'm quite confident it is Reid. The only oddity is the article says that Harris was "born and reared within its confines" (meaning Whitechapel) when Reid was actually born in Kent. The article is littered with quotes but the comment about Harris being born in Whitechapel is not quoted so it could have been second/third person info being passed down to the writer of the article.

Again, if anyone is interested I can post the relevent Harris/Reid portions on a different thread. Once Harris' opinion on JTR is compared with that of Reid, and once the two men's history and credentials are compared, I believe it will leave little doubt that we are talking about the same man.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

So let's start again, if "Harris" is Reid and he was in the know then this is important for a couple reasons.

I just stumbled across this article today, a Sub-Inspector Harris.

"For some days the inhabitants of Eltham, especially the female portion, have been alarmed at a strange looking man sleeping in the woods and fields, and occasionally emerging into solitary places to beg. Complaints were made to the police, many persons thinking he was the Whitechapel assassin. The police turned out to find him, and Sub Inspector Harris on Friday night found him asleep, covered over with grass, in a field abutting on Mottingham lane, Eltham. He was taken to the police station and charged with being found wandering abroad, and sleeping in the open air without visible means of subsistence."
Morning Advertiser, 8 Oct. 1888.

Eltham is south of the river, a little south of Blackheath.
Harris is a common enough name but as we are looking for an Inspector, that should narrow it down a little.
I don't know, it was just a thought... I just do not think it necessary to assume the name "Harris" in your article was a pseudonym.
Did your article say that it was?

Regards, Jon S.

[Nighthawks]

You're right, Lynn. Sorry. How quickly I forget.

I thought you were thinking Blotchy would have introduced himself as a cop.

So, Nighthawk, I guess that it doesn't make sense to me that an officer working undercover, and possibly in a very dangerous situation, would introduce himself as a policeman and blow his cover.

Maybe they had been drinking together and he offered to walk her home because of the danger. I can see that. Where I live, there are times people are pressed into undercover service who are not the best or most reliable of human beings, and who might have records.

sorry, Lynn.

Velma

I'm just exploring the possibility and have enjoyed reading the responses to my post. I don't think blowing your cover to someone you are about to kill would put Blotchy at risk. Rather, it would make MJK more likely to go with him and maybe even to let him into her room. Should she blurt out the information in her drunken state to Hutchinson or Cox, Blotchy could laugh it off as just a drunken rambling.

I haven't committed myself to this or any other theory, but find it useful to explore many possibilities. As I read more here, I'm also considering if it's possible that Hutchinson was an accomplice/lookout. I might write more about this later.

[DRoy]

Michael.

Thank you for that, I wasn't aware. Do you have a source? I'd like to hear more about that although I had heard he was a part of sifting through the ashes.

So let's start again, if "Harris" is Reid and he was in the know then this is important for a couple reasons.
One: this may be hist first "interview" that supersedes his known and published opinions and interviews (see his write up on this site). Two: then someone who who was involved and right in the mix of things is confirming information that we may have missed because it isn't a part of the inquest or his published opinions from later years.

Again, I'd appreciate those with better investigate skills and knowledge of the case than mine...to please intervene and provide some info or confirmation on this.

Thanks

DRoy