Tweet
As I suspected you have nothing to back up your claim that Kennedy was exposed as a plagiariser beyond your highly convoluted 21st century theorising.
And I'm flattered and everything, but the reality of the Kennedy situation was first spotted by Philip Sugden, not me. It is no more my original "theory" than Cross-the-ripper is yours I'm afraid.
As you seem to be basing your theory on the Star’s report of 10th November 1888, please allow me to knock that spoke out of your band wagon.
But who was this woman (‘as reported below’) who heard the cry of ‘Murder’? The cry which their reported regarded as ‘a fabrication’? Why it was Mrs Kennedy!
Did you read the post where I addressed this very detail? Why no! Here it is again: They (The Star) may have assumed, incorrectly, that Kennedy was the original witness, and that other women had parrotted her account (an issue that was cleared up when Lewis appeared at the inquest and Kennedy didn't). Indeed, they may well have concluded erroneously that the entire "oh murder" account was a fabrication, but what could be more understandable given that the report only appeared in the very immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder, and that "half a dozen" women were gumming up the works by providing a chinese-whispered version of the said "oh murder" account? It is hardly surprising, under those circumstances, that the proverbial baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater.
The striking similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts informs us immediately that the phenomenon described by the Star – that of other bogus witnesses parroting an “oh murder” story – not only happened, but made the papers. Otherwise, we’re left with another one of those absurd “coincidences” that some people seem hell bent on pretending to find plausible. Mrs. Kennedy’s own “oh murder” account was both suspiciously similar to Lewis’ (albeit incorporating a sighting of Kelly herself!) and dropped before the inquest, tying in precisely with the Star’s observation. The only error they appeared to have made was their attempt to identify the original source, which was unquestionably Sarah Lewis, who definitely stayed opposite Kelly on the night of the murder, was interviewed by the police, and was called to the inquest...and not Kennedy.
It would seem that the Star reported caught up with Kennedy in the vicinity of Miller’s Court
And besides Prater who else do you suppose told them of it?
By the 14th November, the Star would have known about, and reported, Lewis' inquest evidence. The fact that Lewis did not communicate with the Star (or ostensibly any other newspaper) directly is neither here nor there.
They say it was heard by “several dwellers in the court”.
Please read the extract properly: "as said to have been heard by several dwellers in the court."
"As said"...in other words, uncorroborated second-hand hearsay (or worse) which probably had no direct communication with the Star's reporters.
And who do you think are the ‘others’ whose evidence suggested to the Star that the murder happened after 3 am?
It is fairly clear they were referring to Kennedy.
Kennedy exonerated.
Kennedy exonerated.
Kennedy unexonerated.
But thanks for playing.
But that same sketch presents someone of very unmilitary appearance.
Hi Jon,
"The more reliable of the two" ...would you like to expand on that?
First he claimed he saw no-one and nothing suspicious. Then, four days later, he claimed he served a man & woman, who then stood about in the street.
The police concluded that Packer is not a reliable witness.
The police concluded that Packer is not a reliable witness.
Violenia was sussed out under questioning:
"Subsequently, cross-examination so discredited Violenia's evidence that it was wholly distrusted by the police, and Pizer was set at liberty".
"Subsequently, cross-examination so discredited Violenia's evidence that it was wholly distrusted by the police, and Pizer was set at liberty".
And, I still need to know about your reliable press source.
Meanwhile, my sincere apologies to Droy and his much welcomed attempt to steer the discussion back on track!
All the best,
Ben
Comment