A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Bridewell]

Mrs. Kennedy identified Kelly by name

As did Mrs Maxwell?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[Bridewell]

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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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