A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Wickerman]

I realise that, but it makes very little difference. She still claimed to have seen the victim at around 3.00am on the morning of her death, which means that if she wasn't just some thieving magpie who passed of Lewis' account on her own before being flushed out and discredited, she'd have appeared at the inquest as potentially the most crucial witness, but unfortunately for you, she was.

Hello again, Ben.
We are in no position to second guess why Macdonald only called a dozen witnesses in such an important case as this. Compare Macdonald's short list and single sitting with Wynne Baxter's long list of witnesses and over several days.

Had Wynne Baxter presided over Kelly's inquest we might have fewer questions and a more complete picture.
One consideration why Mrs Kennedy was not called may be that she told her complete story to the press after, I'm sure, being requested by the police to say nothing to anyone. Lewis, Cox, Prater, etc. complied, Kennedy did not.

I didn't mention this earlier, but it's nonsense to suggest that Kennedy would not have been called owing to the extreme similarity with Lewis. On the contrary, had there been any opportunity to present mutually corroborative evidence, police and coroner would have seized at the chance.

Well once again my friend I can demonstrate the errors of your thinking. If this presumption of yours was correct then Maurice Lewis would have been called in support of Mrs Maxwell, but as we all know, he was not.
Neither was the man who sold her the milk... (read on).

"On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room. Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning."

Where are these "very important supportive witnesses" (known to the police), Ben?
Your assumption is unfounded. It should be clear to you that gathering supportive witnesses is not deemed a requirement by the Coroner.
A Coroner does not play "My gang is bigger than your gang" type games, one good witness is all he needs.
Need I go on...?

Sarah Lewis saw the loiterer standing watching a couple pass up the court, this was important because of the time, 2:30 am.
Mrs Kennedy only saw "Kelly"? outside the Britannia "about 3:00 am", with no-one. Yes there was a couple nearby, but she does not say they were so close as to be regarded as "together". Kelly was apparently alone.
The evidence of Sarah Lewis has more potential because of her seeing the loiterer in the vicinity of the murder scene.

The irony is that even if they did sound similar, it would only illustrate that Kennedy passed on the name she had misheard from Lewis.

Not at all.
This extract is not from Mrs Kennedy, the reporter appears to have spoken directly with Mr Gallagher..
"... Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour..."

Well, all being well, I won't have to. With any luck, we've finished with this distracting off-topic nonsense now.

If I recall you are the one who jumped in to make a long drawn out repetitive issue about it, you are the one dragging it out, like you have before. Not that I'm complaining, just to remind you that if this debate does not suit you... just let it go.

Everyone knows she did. She saw one woman standing in Commercial Street outside the Britannia with your favourite black bag man, and then a second woman "in drink" who was with a young man further on down Dorset Street from Miller's Court.

Lewis did not see the second woman outside the Britannia, that was Kennedy.
And, just to remind you, the couple you mention above seen by Lewis, those being watched by this loiterer, are not specified to be in Dorset St. in any press article, that is your invention.

They were located as walking up the passage/court.

There doesn't need to be. Who else apart from the Star got the scoop on Israel Schwartz? No other newspaper. Are you now going to suggest that the Star "made up" Israel Schwartz too?

I didn't make that suggestion, but others have. A more serious concern about that story is "who put the knife in Pipeman's hand?" - where have you been?
Trusting The Star has always been ill advised, even at the time.

So instead it needs to be realised that the Star made investigations independent from other newspapers, and uncovered information that we now know to be true.

This explains why your arguments are in so much trouble, your source is no better than the Keystone Cops. It is because the police will not talk to The Star that, "they make it up as they go" (their words, not mine).

You may not like the Star, but they demonstrated perfectly - not just in the Schwartz case - that they "practiced their own investigative skills".

You should add that line to your signature

When Lewis saw the wideawake man, who I agree was Hutchinson, he was standing opposite the court entrance by Crossingham's lodging house. This is made clear in every single source, including her police statement, apart from the Daily News. There is no earthly justification for you to champion the Daily News' erroneous report as accurate whilst discarding all the other accounts which flatly contradict it. None at all.

The justification is Hutchinson's own words to the police... for goodness sakes.
"...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."

Then the same to the press...
"...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 three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."

She might have said she was, but it's far more likely that she heard from Lewis that she was "sealed in". It's just another detail that Kennedy stole from Lewis' account.

Every witness that disagrees with you, you brand a liar!

And now, you go so far as to add Sarah Lewis to your "liars club". You do agree she honoured a request by the police to say nothing?, yet you now make her a liar by suggesting she told Mrs Kennedy, why?, its your way of trying to uphold your crumbling theory.

I said she honoured her agreement with the police not to speak to the press. I never said she didn't speak to other women. Indeed, I think it's very clear that she did, and that Kennedy was one of those women.

Ok, I see, "you cannot say anything to the press Mrs Lewis, but by all means tell anyone you choose, friends, neighbours, relatives...", uncle Tom Cobley and all!

Sure Ben, that's the common police method to limit the spread of critical evidence, dammit, how come I missed that (good grief!).

We're regurgitating entire debates practically verbatim. I think out of respect for the other posters here, let's put all this Kennedy silliness on hold for now.

Like I pointed out above, you choose to make an issue of it, ...just let it go.

But the reliable, non-discredited, taken-seriously evidence paints a somewhat different picture - that of an intoxicated woman with ample time for extended sing-song indoors.

So you don't believe Prater afterall? - All was quiet after 1:00 am, no singing, no movement, no light (Prater), not even a fire?

Quite consistent with Kelly being out, back on the streets.
Yes, she could have fallen asleep, but there's no "reliable, non-discredited, taken-seriously evidence" (your words), to be sure either way. And, falling asleep in a cold room with no fire (no light?) - not likely.
Also, two people, albeit two members of your ever expanding "liars club", say they saw her out, whether you choose to believe them or not.

But one of the most crucial criteria for such judgments is the manner in which that evidence is presented, and as such, police and inquest statements are bound to be treated as more reliable than press tattle. That's just obvious.

The authorities were not comparing inquest testimony to statements made in the press, thats what we are doing.
And, my question has always been, on what basis do we reject the story given by a press witness especially when it does not contradict a story given at the inquest?

My point being, press witnesses are only rejected by modern theorists because what they say conflicts with modern ill thought out theories.

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Good points in your last post, and I appreciate your efforts to steer the thread back on track. I'll just respond to Jon's latest, and then with any luck the ship will be back on course. I can't rule out the possibility of other people persisting with the "Mrs. Kennedy" stuff in an attempt to win a last-man-standing war of repetition, but fingers crossed that won't happen.

Hi Jon,

Ben, what I'm saying is, the report does not "quote" Mrs Kennedy as using the name "Kelly". The report is given to us in the third person, ie; "she saw" and "she noticed".That being the case we cannot say Mrs Kennedy specified Kelly by name.

I realise that, but it makes very little difference. She still claimed to have seen the victim at around 3.00am on the morning of her death, which means that if she wasn't just some thieving magpie who passed of Lewis' account on her own before being flushed out and discredited, she'd have appeared at the inquest as potentially the most crucial witness, but unfortunately for you, she was. I didn't mention this earlier, but it's nonsense to suggest that Kennedy would not have been called owing to the extreme similarity with Lewis. On the contrary, had there been any opportunity to present mutually corroborative evidence, police and coroner would have seized at the chance.

Gallagher and Kellegher/Kelleher are not only easily mistaken for each other in English pronunciation, but also a Kelleher mispronounced in English as Keyler is beyond dispute.

What the...?

Where the hell does "Kelleher" come from?

The Evening News gave the name Gallagher (no-one else did, significantly), whereas Lewis' police report and virtually all other press inquest reports give Keyler, and I think we reasonably expect that the police made enquiries and ascertained that this was the correct name. It is after all, an actual surname. "Kelleher" doesn't appear anywhere, and is a name you seem to have just plucked from the ether.

So the similarity between Keyler and Gallagher is...what, exactly?

"er."

Huge similarity there!

Gallagh..

Keyl..

Gal-ag...

Keel...

Or perhaps Kayl

Nope, try as I might, it requires some bizarre wishful thinking to get those two names to sound similar.

The irony is that even if they did sound similar, it would only illustrate that Kennedy passed on the name she had misheard from Lewis.

Why do you keep this up Ben

Well, all being well, I won't have to. With any luck, we've finished with this distracting off-topic nonsense now.

Hold it Ben, Lewis did not see a second woman.

Yes she DID, Jon.

Everyone knows she did. She saw one woman standing in Commercial Street outside the Britannia with your favourite black bag man, and then a second woman "in drink" who was with a young man further on down Dorset Street from Miller's Court.

Two completely different couples in completely different locations, with none of them having anything to do with the Court.

Who else noticed this? Have you found any other mention in the press about 'parroting'?

There doesn't need to be. Who else apart from the Star got the scoop on Israel Schwartz? No other newspaper. Are you now going to suggest that the Star "made up" Israel Schwartz too? No. So instead it needs to be realised that the Star made investigations independent from other newspapers, and uncovered information that we now know to be true. Or is it just an amazing coincidence that the Star's findings perfectly explain the suspicious, unrealistic degree of similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts? You may not like the Star, but they demonstrated perfectly - not just in the Schwartz case - that they "practiced their own investigative skills".

Did they incorrectly identify Kennedy as the originator? Maybe, but the issue was soon clarified when it was revealed that Lewis stayed in Miller's Court, Lewis honoured her police agreement not to blab to the press, Lewis gave a police report, and that Lewis gave her evidence at the inquest. This cemented beyond question her identity as the woman whose account was being parroted, and it inescapably follows that the parroters must have been those women whose accounts were suspiciously similar to Lewis', but whose name appeared only in the press. Mrs. Kennedy, in other words. The inference is inescapable, to my mind.

He is not going to see any light or hear a noise from out in the street, is he. So here we have him admitting he walked up the court and stood outside her room - just as Lewis described.

No.

When Lewis saw the wideawake man, who I agree was Hutchinson, he was standing opposite the court entrance by Crossingham's lodging house. This is made clear in every single source, including her police statement, apart from the Daily News. There is no earthly justification for you to champion the Daily News' erroneous report as accurate whilst discarding all the other accounts which flatly contradict it. None at all.

Because Kennedy was in the court visiting her parents, and was still there at 11:00 am, she was also sealed in with the rest of the tenants.

She might have said she was, but it's far more likely that she heard from Lewis that she was "sealed in". It's just another detail that Kennedy stole from Lewis' account.

No Ben, here I think you trapped yourself, if you claim Lewis honoured her agreement by not talking to anyone, then how could she tell Mrs Kennedy?

I said she honoured her agreement with the police not to speak to the press. I never said she didn't speak to other women. Indeed, I think it's very clear that she did, and that Kennedy was one of those women.

It doesn't work like that Ben, the police tell the witness not to discuss it with anyone!

Says who? You?

Not necessary Ben, we all debate the same old issues over and over again. Views change, ideas change

But yours don't, that's the problem, and you make it worse by arguing things that can't possibly be true. If I come across as intolerant, I'm afraid it stems from that. And we're not just debating the "same old issues". We're regurgitating entire debates practically verbatim. I think out of respect for the other posters here, let's put all this Kennedy silliness on hold for now.

Kelly had every reason to be out earning coin

But the reliable, non-discredited, taken-seriously evidence paints a somewhat different picture - that of an intoxicated woman with ample time for extended sing-song indoors.

Any statement by any witness no matter where given must be judged on its own merits, and that is the overriding issue here.

But one of the most crucial criteria for such judgments is the manner in which that evidence is presented, and as such, police and inquest statements are bound to be treated as more reliable than press tattle. That's just obvious.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

Forgive me for attempting to steer this back toward the thread crux..

Your efforts do not go unnoticed...

One thing that I do believe is important here is that Sarah Lewis did not say she saw Mary Kelly, and anyone that did say they specifically saw Mary Kelly out of her room after 11:45pm Thursday night were either absent from the Inquest or warned about their statements, as Bonds findings clearly indicate that he believed she was dead long before 8am.

One of the issues has been that only those who appeared at the inquest are to be believed, yet it is well demonstrated that inaccurate statements were given at inquests, so this premiss is proven flawed.

Witness statements given to the press are no less accurate just because they were published in the press.
Any statement by any witness no matter where given must be judged on its own merits, and that is the overriding issue here.

Kelly had every reason to be out earning coin, no-one was in a position to say that she stayed in all night, so if someone said she saw Kelly out, her claim is quite possible.
That's the reality of the situation.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

She certainly did to a reporter, Jon.

Ben, what I'm saying is, the report does not "quote" Mrs Kennedy as using the name "Kelly". The report is given to us in the third person, ie; "she saw" and "she noticed".
That being the case we cannot say Mrs Kennedy specified Kelly by name.

The couple who lived opposite Kelly were the Keylers, not the Gallaghers (and please no silly suggestions from anyone that the names sound the same - they effing well don't!) as established in Lewis' police report and inquest evidence.

You apparently remember being told, in no uncertain terms by three different posters, besides myself, that you are once again.....totally wrong!
Sam Flynn - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=253
Good Michael - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=223
Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=224

Gallagher and Kellegher/Kelleher are not only easily mistaken for each other in English pronunciation, but also a Kelleher mispronounced in English as Keyler is beyond dispute.
Why do you keep this up Ben, I mean, really, its just like you refuse to learn anything.
Its not as if mishearing or mispronunciation is unique in this case, we have several examples of misheard or mispronounced personal names and words.

The time at which Lewis returned home was 2:30am according to the church clock, unlike Kennedy's 3.00am, and Lewis did not identify the Britannia woman as Kelly, unlike Kennedy who did.

Hold it Ben, Lewis did not see a second woman.
Lewis saw one man & one woman, Kennedy saw one man and two women, the second woman suggested to be Kelly.

Lewis passed the Britannia at 2:30 and saw a man and a woman, then "about" 3:00, Kennedy passed the Britannia and saw the same couple arguing, but also a second woman had appeared - Kelly.

That is a simple and straight forward interpretation, without the need to call anyone a liar.

We also have a report to the effect that an account was being parroted by other women.

Who else noticed this?
Have you found any other mention in the press about 'parroting'?
Did anyone else cover this story?

Why do you suppose The Star would make such a claim?, first they declare that several women are spreading the same story about the cry of murder. Then, they claim "they" (The Star) have investigated this and found that these claims were all "a fabrication".
No-one else, no other newspaper even noticed this, do you suppose The Star made this up? - perhaps to give their readers the impression that they practiced their own investigative skills?

In reality, the 'parroting' was just rumors that two other women had heard screams, the two witnesses who cannot speak to the press (Lewis & Prater), but The Star wrongly determined these rumors to be copying Mrs Kennedy when in actual fact they were all genuine witnesses.

The Star did talk to Mrs Prater, but Prater did not tell them that she was one of the women who heard the cry.
You also know that Sarah Lewis never gave an interview to the press, so The Star, had no other source, both the two ladies who were interviewed by the police and subsequently gave evidence at the inquest, did not speak to the press. Likely at the request of the police.

So, why would The Star claim these stories were a fabrication?
The only single source available to The Star was Mrs Kennedy, and they gave her version out in full. The rest of the sources, according to The Star, were a fabrication.

Just shows us how much they knew, doesn't it.

Was wideawake man standing in the "doorway of the deceased's house"?

Don't think so, somehow.

We have it from the horse's mouth...

"...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...."
Hutchinson.

He is not going to see any light or hear a noise from out in the street, is he. So here we have him admitting he walked up the court and stood outside her room - just as Lewis described.

Let's not. Where's the evidence that she was "captured within Miller's Court"? She may have claimed as much, but it's a near certainty ....

Whats this "near certainty"?, based on what?

Because Kennedy was in the court visiting her parents, and was still there at 11:00 am, she was also sealed in with the rest of the tenants.
The police interviewed all the tenants before they were allowed to go.

Mrs Kennedy - ".....until the morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small houses in this court."

We hear of Lewis for the first time at the inquest, which tells us that honoured her agreement with the police not to discuss her experience with the press, which speaks immeasurably for her credibility. Unfortunately, she appears to have discussed her experiences with other women, and at least one of them - Mrs. Kennedy - went straight to the press with her story.

No Ben, here I think you trapped yourself, if you claim Lewis honoured her agreement by not talking to anyone, then how could she tell Mrs Kennedy?
So, you have to make a concession, you choose to argue that Lewis was only asked not to talk to the press, but you are open to tell everyone else if you choose?

It doesn't work like that Ben, the police tell the witness not to discuss it with anyone!

I do apologise if the forgoing sounded stroppy, but I seem to go through this business time and time again.

Not necessary Ben, we all debate the same old issues over and over again. Views change, ideas change, new members contribute. There's always something new to pick up on.

What astounds me is how you profess to be so certain about issues that are simply not certain at all. You offer your opinions as facts, and there is certainly nothing factual about 'our interpretation' of news stories which are to a greater and lesser degree often edited.
Its almost as if you have decided how you want this story to be read, and you refuse to tolerate opinions which challenge your view.
Pretty much everything about the Kelly case is debatable, and always will be.

All the best, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Since the suggested return to thread idea seems to have failed, then I might as well add this....it would be wise to avoid any corroborative suggestion using George Hutchinsons story as the baseline. One cannot conclude that Mrs Kennedy seems to have seen what George Hutchinson says he saw because we cannot be sure that Mr Hutchinson was there or saw anything of importance.

Merely giving a statement is not any assurance of authenticity, and in this case, that baseline statement was discredited.

One has to use common sense and reason to sort out who can be believed, and in this instance, we have only people living in #26 Dorset or in Millers Court that night as believable witnesses.

Best regards

[Bridewell]

The couple who lived opposite Kelly were the Keylers, not the Gallaghers (and please no silly suggestions from anyone that the names sound the same - they effing well don't!)

Ben,

Why have you felt the need to make this point? If you are anticipating the possibility that someone would make such a comparison, are you not implicitly stating that the argument has some validity? It is, after all, a possibility which you have yourself apparently considered, even if only to discount it.

[Ben]

Many thanks for the info on that potential Kennedy identification, Sally!

Actually Ben, she did not mentioned Kelly by name

She certainly did to a reporter, Jon.

Here's some lovely nonsense from the Evening News. Tellingly, it appeared on the 10th November, which was when the most notoriously bogus reports (Kelly's "young boy" and other boo-boos) were in circulation:

"On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. 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".

"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday"

The couple who lived opposite Kelly were the Keylers, not the Gallaghers (and please no silly suggestions from anyone that the names sound the same - they effing well don't!) as established in Lewis' police report and inquest evidence. The time at which Lewis returned home was 2:30am according to the church clock, unlike Kennedy's 3.00am, and Lewis did not identify the Britannia woman as Kelly, unlike Kennedy who did.

What, then, do we have here?

We have a story that was extremely similar to Lewis' account; far too similar for it to be credibly suggested that they were two separate experiences of two separate women, but which nonetheless contained significant differences from the Lewis account.

We also have a report to the effect that an account was being parroted by other women.

We also have the fact that Lewis gave a police report and inquest evidence, whereas Kennedy's account only appeared in the press.

Anyone who finds it difficult to conclude from this that Kennedy was obviously - oh so terribly obviously - one of the women who parroted Lewis' account must suffer from an astonishingly obstinate refusal to stare the bleedin' screamingly obvious in the face.

But, there is not the slightest evidence or suggestion that Mrs Kennedy was deemed untrustworthy by the authorities nor the press, that 'label' is of your own creation, more for convenience than anything else.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. There is every indication that Mrs. Kennedy was exposed as one who attempted to pass off a genuine account as her own. The evidence in support of this contention is compelling enough to nullify completely the alternatives. Doesn't it bother you slightly that it's only you who keeps bringing "Mrs. Kennedy" into every Kelly discussion, with few other authors giving it any credence whatsoever? It really ought to.

Seeing a man stand watching a couple pass up the court is seeing Kelly, she was with a client (Astrachan), because, it is confirmation of Hutchinson's story.

Statements such as these are so painful to behold in their wrongness.

Sarah Lewis DID NOT see ANYONE pass up the court.

Her evidence makes it clear that she saw nobody in the court.

And really, Jon, if you wish to endorse Hutchinson's account as accurate at least listen to what he actually said. He claimed to have only taken up his position opposite the entrance to Miller's Court AFTER Astrakhan and Kelly entered Miller's Court. Hutchinson was at the corner of Dorset Street when the pair entered the court, according to his account. If you choose to believe that Hutchinson was the wideawake man and that the rest of his account was genuine, you'll need to accept that whatever "couple" you wrongly believe Lewis saw enter the court, they couldn't possibly have been Kelly and Astrakhan.

Not knowing Kelly does not mean not seeing Kelly. Lewis was a visitor to Millers Court so naturally you can't expect her to "know" Mary Kelly.

She didn't know her, and she most assuredly didn't see her.

The only report which provides complete details in clearly describing where Lewis saw this couple, - walking up the passage, is the Daily News. This is important because it is the only report that is complete

IT.. IS.. WRONG.. - FACT!

Look, here's the lamentable extract you keep referring to:

"Sarah Lewes, 24, Great Pearl-street, a laundress, said-I know a Mrs. Keiller, in Miller's-court, and went to see her on Friday morning at 2.30 o'clock by Spitalfields Church clock. In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. 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".

Was wideawake man standing in the "doorway of the deceased's house"?

Don't think so, somehow.

Every other source places him opposite the court on the other side of Dorset Street. Her police statement says so. Every other press inquest transcript says so. And yet, for some impossible-to-justify reason, you single out the Daily News as being correct on this point. Why? You do the same with the Daily News' erroneous detail involving the couple pass up the court? Where else is such a remark attributed to Lewis? Absolutely nowhere.

If you wish to understand how astoundingly clear it is that the couple Lewis saw were on Dorset Street and not Miller's Court, check out the Daily Telegraph's reporting of Lewis' testimony, which was fairly typical:

"Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. 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. There was nobody in the court. I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half-past three. I heard the clock strike."

Y'see?

The wideawake man was in Dorset Street.

The "in drink" couple were "further along" Dorset Street.

And there was "nobody in the court".

Not also that "Sarah Lewis" and "Keyler" are spelt correctly, unlike the Daily News.

Seriously, if you want to examine the facts surrounding Lewis's testimony, it isn't necessary to purge the Daily News from any further consideration.

Sarah Lewis was making it clear that this couple she saw did not go into the court to have a 'quickie' in the dark, they must have gone into one of the rooms.

No.

No.

No.

Sarah Lewis is making it clear that there was nobody in any part of the court (which definitely definitely definitely encompasses the interconnecting passage), and that the couple she saw were ONLY seen in Dorset Street.

Had her story not been treated as truthful, it would not be repeated in the press on the 12th, 14th and 17th, for over a week after Kennedy spoke to the police.

Not the case, Jon.

Press agencies circulated information - including crap, bogus discredited information - and there was no guarantee that all papers would publish it on the same day. The newspapers that published "Mrs. Kennedy's" account on the 17th were either late to receive or late to publish it, which doesn't make it any less rejected.

And Ben, we "know" she spoke to the police because she was 'captured' within Millers Court where no-one was allowed to leave until they had been interviewed. So lets drop the "you can't prove she spoke to the police" argument.

Let's not. Where's the evidence that she was "captured within Miller's Court"? She may have claimed as much, but it's a near certainty that she spoke to Lewis after she was released from Miller's Court, learning of her experiences and then parroting it off as her own, as reported in the press.

So no, there's no evidence whatsoever that Kennedy spoke to the police.

Lewis must be removed from your equation, Kennedy is the only public source for the press, Kennedy is their original source.

We hear of Lewis for the first time at the inquest, which tells us that honoured her agreement with the police not to discuss her experience with the press, which speaks immeasurably for her credibility. Unfortunately, she appears to have discussed her experiences with other women, and at least one of them - Mrs. Kennedy - went straight to the press with her story.

I do apologise if the forgoing sounded stroppy, but I seem to go through this business time and time again. I find myself failing, to my shame, to respond calmly to an entrenched position that's so utterly and provably awash with wrongness.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Mrs. Kennedy identified Kelly by name as the women outside the Britannia....

Actually Ben, she did not mentioned Kelly by name, so this claim by you cannot be used to suggest Kennedy 'should' have been called by Macdonald.

"Conflicting with nothing" is not the leading barometer by which to assess accuracy or truthfulness, Jon. Never has been. Ever.

The suggestion of truth, or lack thereof, is only coming from you Ben, not from anyone at the time.
We can all label witnesses as liars when they make claims we don't like. But, there is not the slightest evidence or suggestion that Mrs Kennedy was deemed untrustworthy by the authorities nor the press, that 'label' is of your own creation, more for convenience than anything else.

What are you talking about?
Lewis did not mention seeing Kelly.

Seeing a man stand watching a couple pass up the court is seeing Kelly, she was with a client (Astrachan), because, it is confirmation of Hutchinson's story.

On the contrary, she made it quite clear that she did not even know her.

Not knowing Kelly does not mean not seeing Kelly. Lewis was a visitor to Millers Court so naturally you can't expect her to "know" Mary Kelly.
We all see people every day that we don't "know", we may even speak to them, but unless we are on friendly terms we cannot claim to "know" them.

Nor did Lewis mention seeing anyone "enter the scene of the crime". Read her police report and 99.9% of the press inquest reports.

In 99.9% of the reports, the location of this "couple" is not given. None of the reports tell us this couple were seen by Sarah Lewis walking in Dorset St. - none of them Ben. But you claim this is where the couple was, without any supporting evidence.

The only report which provides complete details in clearly describing where Lewis saw this couple, - walking up the passage, is the Daily News. This is important because it is the only report that is complete - but you reject it, yet you prefer to accept the others which give no location at all. Why?, because these reports allow you to provide your own solution instead of the actual one?

She states that there was nobody in the court.

Exactly, so why did you claim Lewis did not see Kelly enter the crime scene?

It is because Lewis saw this couple walk up the court/passage, and then is able to state quite categorically that there was no-one in the court, clearly means the couple had gone indoors. Into which room she obviously could not say.
Sarah Lewis was making it clear that this couple she saw did not go into the court to have a 'quickie' in the dark, they must have gone into one of the rooms.

In some newspaper reports (suspiciously not all), Kennedy identified the hatless woman as Kelly. Had her account been treated as truthful,.....

Had her story not been treated as truthful, it would not be repeated in the press on the 12th, 14th and 17th, for over a week after Kennedy spoke to the police. And Ben, we "know" she spoke to the police because she was 'captured' within Millers Court where no-one was allowed to leave until they had been interviewed. So lets drop the "you can't prove she spoke to the police" argument.
Once the press found out something was not accurate they not only exposed it, but also dropped it like a stone. Kennedy's story was not dropped.

Kennedy would certainly have been called to the inquest as the last person to see the victim alive. The fact that she wasn't is our first indication that Kennedy was discredited.

The version that identifies the second woman as Kelly, is a morning paper on the 10th. None of the later papers go so far. The fact this early report does not quote Kennedy verbatim suggests to me that Mrs Kennedy did not know Mary Kelly, she did not say "this was Mary Kelly", so the possibility exists that it was the reporter who made the connection that this second woman was the deceased, not Kennedy. Also, she did not see where Kelly went, Kennedy left her standing outside the Britannia.
This could be why Kennedy was not called.

The most crucial piece of evidence in this regard, however, is the aforementioned revelation that several women had copied an "oh murder" account. The question as to which "on murder" account - Lewis' or Prater's - is answered immediately by the suspicious correlation of detail between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts.

No, no, the press knew nothing about Sarah Lewis until the 12th.

Lewis must be removed from your equation, Kennedy is the only public source for the press, Kennedy is their original source. No paper can criticize Kennedy for parroting Lewis before they knew what Lewis had seen/heard, which they did not until the Inquest on the 12th.

The police knew what Lewis had heard on the 9th, the press only found out on the 12th.
Kennedy's version was published on the morning of the 10th, so the reporter spoke to Kennedy also on the 9th, in time for the morning press.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

I think a pelerine could also be of either fur or whole-cloth, (It was an interesting word so I checked it out way back!)...I even recall seeing a picture of a knitted or crocheted example - but I suppose the important thing is that it's a garment that's usually waist length at the back with long tapered descending ends at the front...

Trouble is that the word has since been applied to all sorts of half-capes, crocheted tunics, and even socks!

None of which is THAT relevant to the thread so I'll shut up!

All the best

Dave

PS I thought witnesses stated that Kelly didn't wear hats? Leaving aside the wired remains in the fire, I wonder if any hat was found in Millers Court?

[Bridewell]

Oxford Dictionary: 'Pelerine' - a woman’s cape of lace or silk with pointed ends at the centre front, popular in the 19th century.

[Wickerman]

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.

I'll offer you two quotes which might clarify the issue.

"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.
.
.
Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."
Evening News, 10 Nov.

Unfortunately you continue to ignore the evidence of Elizabeth Prater that Kelly was wearing a hat on the night under scrutiny.

?
Mrs Prater saw Kelly wearing a hat on Thursday night at 9:00 pm.


Mrs Cox saw Kelly nearly three hours later at 11:45, and she was not wearing the hat...

[Coroner] What clothes had Mary Jane on ?

Cox: - She had no hat; a red pelerine and a shabby skirt.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Forgive me for attempting to steer this back toward the thread crux..there are some arguments that can go on unresolved for days and weeks, it would seem that these sightings are interpreted differently and perhaps its best we leave it at that.... unless someone has the clincher just waiting to be used. One thing that I do believe is important here is that Sarah Lewis did not say she saw Mary Kelly, and anyone that did say they specifically saw Mary Kelly out of her room after 11:45pm Thursday night were either absent from the Inquest or warned about their statements, as Bonds findings clearly indicate that he believed she was dead long before 8am.

That is the basis for this thread supposition. If Mary Kelly did not leave her room Friday morning, that means her killer came to her. How he gained access to her room is one pivotal point in this investigation....if she allowed him entrance, which I believe my original theorizing shows is probable, then she is not a random victim chosen for her work outdoors alone. Her killer is also, by situational default, not a stranger.

That in and of itself is a dramatic departure from the evidence in the cases of Polly and Annie. Both stated they were trying to "earn" their doss at the time they were killed, and there is no evidence, as yet, that they knew the person who killed them.

I do not believe its possible for the killer to have silently entered the room and attacked Mary without struggle noises and something more than "oh-murder" being called out. I also know that when the room was entered it was found that the windows were locked. They could have been locked by the killer, sure, by we dont know that. He could have entered the door had the spring latch been set at "off", but that means he either accessed that latch himself....which is likely a man who knew that room, or he found it unlocked, something I doubt Mary would have done if she let Blotchy out after her singing.

The physical evidence in this case suggests a personal connection...facial mutilations, murder setting and victims manner of dress, the removal of her heart....and the circumstantial evidence suggests she allowed someone in....the locked windows, the call out at approx "3:45" from the court without any noise following it, the specific manner in which the lock could be circumvented,.....and based on the physicality of the room and the deceased this murderer almost certainly used his left hand as his primary cutting hand, which is a departure from previous Ripper crimes.

Despite the fact that Mary Kelly is horribly mutilated most of the evidence in that room and of that crime suggests that the man that killed her did not kill Polly and Annie.

If that is the case, then where did that man go? Why didnt he kill more?

The answer may be as simple as his lack of ability to freely walk the streets after those murders. So, as Lynn Cates has done admirably, we should spend some time assessing what suspects for the first 2 crimes could not have committed any more murders,... due to incarceration, institutionalization, death or departure from England.

Mary Kelly may well have been murdered for something we can understand, unlike the impulsive whims of serial killers, which we cannot fully grasp. One hopes.;D

Best regards all

[Sally]

Mrs Kennedy

The thing with 'Mrs Kennedy' is that a Sarah Lewis of Great Pearl Street - very likely the very same lady who was later called to the witness stand in the Kelly case - had close neighbours called Kennedy in 1881.

Closest to her own age was Mary Ann Kennedy, just a few years older - she could easily have been 'Mrs Kennedy'. Granted, she was in face Mrs George by 1888, but given the propensity of people to use variant names when need be; and perhaps her desire to retain a certain degree of anonymity, that needn't be an issue.

There is also Ellen Kennedy, her sister in law, who was indeed 'Mrs Kennedy' in 1888, living in Bethnal Green.

Given the perfectly plausible connection between Sarah Lewis and this family of Kennedys, I think a little circumspection might be desirable when considering the value of 'Mrs Kennedy' and her account.

'Kennedy' was not, incidentally, a particularly common local name in 1888.

[Ben]

Not at all Ben, you are missing the point, there was no reason to reject her statement, it conflicts with nothing.

"Conflicting with nothing" is not the leading barometer by which to assess accuracy or truthfulness, Jon. Never has been. Ever.

Mrs Kennedy did not see Kelly enter the scene of the crime with a man, Lewis did

What are you talking about?

Lewis did not mention seeing Kelly. On the contrary, she made it quite clear that she did not even know her. Nor did Lewis mention seeing anyone "enter the scene of the crime". Read her police report and 99.9% of the press inquest reports. She states that there was nobody in the court. You are once again relying on a single piece of misreporting in the Daily News. Every other source makes it clear that the man and women had nothing to do with the court but simply "passed along", i.e. Dorset Street. I beseech and implore you to accept this, Jon, even if you accept nothing else I say. I must confess to dying a little inside when I keep seeing this provably false claim that Lewis saw a couple enter the court. There has never been any suggestion that either of the women she saw was Kelly. Had it been otherwise, Lewis would have been called to the morgue to at least attempt an identification.

In some newspaper reports (suspiciously not all), Kennedy identified the hatless woman as Kelly. Had her account been treated as truthful, Kennedy would certainly have been called to the inquest as the last person to see the victim alive. The fact that she wasn't is our first indication that Kennedy was discredited. The most crucial piece of evidence in this regard, however, is the aforementioned revelation that several women had copied an "oh murder" account. The question as to which "on murder" account - Lewis' or Prater's - is answered immediately by the suspicious correlation of detail between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts.

The reporters knew who was 'parroting' stories, and they did not report those versions, they say as much themselves.

Some of them might not have been reported, but it's a complete no-brainer that Kennedy was one who had plagiarized Lews, and as for the others, I'd seriously consider the possibility of "Paumier" and "Roney" picking up fag-ends from Lewis' genuine account of a man with a "high hat" and a black bag.

They only published the original - Mrs Kennedy's version.

Not possible, Jon. Even if some papers believed it was the original on the unenlightened 10th November, we know it cannot have been because Lewis's evidence appeared at the inquest, whereas Kennedy dropped off the map.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

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.

But that was certainly not the case with Kennedy, Colin.

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.

Though it would have been used if the authorities believed that the man she had sighted outside the Britannia was Kelly's killer, Colin.