Mr Blotchy

[Sam Flynn]

It all becomes a bit too much when we try to explain away all of this as mishearing or misreportings.

A bit too much? Early press reports were frequently erroneous throughout the Ripper case, so it's quite likely that this is what we're dealing with here.

Itīs either that, or we are left to conclude that you only choose to follow your own logic when it suits your suggested scenarios. Itīs a massive cop-out the way I see it.

I'm not in the least "copping out" or "following my own logic" - quite the contrary, I'm applying my experience of the case, and the source materials, to the matter in hand.

[Fisherman]

The "Kennedy" stories all appear to date back to November 10th - there are later "Kennedy" reports that dribble out until the 17th November, but they contain ostensibly the same information as was reported in the Star, Evening News and St James Gazette on the 10th. As such, this is probably less a matter of "deliberate misinformation" on Lewis/Kennedy's part, but an instance of the typical confusion and/or hearsay that often characterised early press coverage.

Apart from the dribbled-out recurrence of the names "Kennedy" and "Gallagher" in subsequent reports, it's noteworthy that the names "Lewis" and "Keyler" don't seem to appear in the press until the papers covered the inquest proper. I suspect that it was at this point that the correct names of the protagonists (the witness and the relatives with whom she was staying) became definitively known.

Please observe, Gareth, that I am not saying that they were or were not just the one person. However, as Jon has pointed out, there are a number of matters where the two differ:

Kennedy is at the Britannia at about 3 AM and Lewis at the Keylers at 2.30 AM. That is no mishearing or misreporting, as far as Iīm concerned. Kennedy says she is with Kelly outside the Britannia but Lewis does not know Kelly. That is no mishearing or misreporting as far as Iīm concerend. Kennedy has one man and two women outside the Britannia and Lewis has just the one woman and a man there. Kennedy does not mention any loiterer outside the court, but Lewis does.

It all becomes a bit too much when we try to explain away all of this as mishearing or misreportings. Going down that lane, we can rearrange the case to make anybody out as the killer.

It becomes quite apparent that if the two names stood for the same woman, then that woman is not to be relied upon testimonywise. From the moment she swops names, she tells differing stories about the same matters time and again. That means that we should not touch her information with a pair of pliers if we want to be taken seriously ourselves.

Of course, the real problem is that you say that two women cannot possibly ("not a chance", is how you word yourself) present that close stories without being the same person, whereas you have no problems at all claiming it as the by far most logical solution that two serial killers may more or less simultaneously and in the same town engage in cutting away abdominal walls, ripping from ribs to pubes, taking out uteri, taking out hearts, stealing rings, targetting prostitutes.

Having noticed that, you deduct that one of them lived in the East End and the other it the West End, "almost certainly" so. And that they cut out uteri for different reasons, even!

If you can accomodate THAT kind of thinking, then there should be acres of space to allow for Lewis and Kennedy being two women.

Itīs either that, or we are left to conclude that you only choose to follow your own logic when it suits your suggested scenarios. Itīs a massive cop-out the way I see it.

[Sam Flynn]

It still does not explain why Lewis/Kennedy (if the two names should be sorted in like that) was all over the place when giving information. Why would she deliberatley misinform as Kennedy and be truthful as Lewis? That makes no sense whatsoever, not least as she would compromise her own testimony rather badly by doing it.

The "Kennedy" stories all appear to date back to November 10th - there are later "Kennedy" reports that dribble out until the 17th November, but they contain ostensibly the same information as was reported in the Star, Evening News and St James Gazette on the 10th. As such, this is probably less a matter of "deliberate misinformation" on Lewis/Kennedy's part, but an instance of the typical confusion and/or hearsay that often characterised early press coverage.

Apart from the dribbled-out recurrence of the names "Kennedy" and "Gallagher" in subsequent reports, it's noteworthy that the names "Lewis" and "Keyler" don't seem to appear in the press until the papers covered the inquest proper. I suspect that it was at this point that the correct names of the protagonists (the witness and the relatives with whom she was staying) became definitively known.

[Fisherman]

Lewis was under oath - and was liable for a fine if misbehaving and with no conflicting testimony, Lewis's shadow Mrs.Kennedy was not.

It still does not explain why Lewis/Kennedy (if the two names should be sorted in like that) was all over the place when giving information. Why would she deliberatley misinform as Kennedy and be truthful as Lewis? That makes no sense whatsoever, not least as she would compromise her own testimony rather badly by doing it.

[jerryd]

Wasn't it Spectacle Alley where the coffee shop was located that Leon Goldstein visited?

[jerryd]

This 1868 map names a few of them.

[RockySullivan]

There are a couple of courts on the south side of Whitechapel High Street, just before you reach George Yard if walking westward, and I have been trying to find this section of buildings in Goads. I've had no luck yet, it's identified as Sheet 97, Vol. V., but there is no sheet 97 in Vol. V.
Which may mean that sheet has not survived, unless someone else has better luck than I have.

Ok Wick I was thinking the white spaces were courts

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rocky. The coffee stall keeper claimed the man who visited his stall only resembled George R. Sims. The stallkeeper knew it couldn't have been Sim because this other man ordered and consumed many sausages and a meat pie. I'm guessing Sims writing as Dagonet must have reported throughout his writings of some intestinal condition that didn't allow him to eat sausages, maybe. Either way, was the stall something mobile like a food cart, or was it a brick-and-mortar shop where sausages and meat pies could be cooked?

Howdy Devil, I know haha i gathered that. Still it sounds as if the coffee man's story took place before the double event, so i'm wondering where can that be found?

[Wickerman]

No luck either, that sheet does seem to be missing. Fortunately the OS maps name some of the courts!

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom...layers=163&b=1

Thankyou Joshua, I recall you using that site before, I keep forgetting about it.

[Wickerman]

Lewis was under oath - and was liable for a fine if misbehaving and with no conflicting testimony, Lewis's shadow Mrs.Kennedy was not.

I doubt a witness in an inquest felt they were under any significant threat. This was not a murder trial. Maria Harvey was "misbehaving" according to the press, giving back-chat to the Coroner, and Maxwell, as we all know was warned about her testimony being contrary to others.
It depends what you mean by "misbehaving".

[As a side note, I always wondered about that comment from Macdonald. I do not read anything spoken by other witnesses which was contradicted by Maxwell. The witnesses who spoke both before Maxwell and after her, none of whom suggested Kelly had died overnight - contradicting Maxwell]

[Joshua Rogan]

There are a couple of courts on the south side of Whitechapel High Street, just before you reach George Yard if walking westward, and I have been trying to find this section of buildings in Goads. I've had no luck yet, it's identified as Sheet 97, Vol. V., but there is no sheet 97 in Vol. V.
Which may mean that sheet has not survived, unless someone else has better luck than I have.

No luck either, that sheet does seem to be missing. Fortunately the OS maps name some of the courts!

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=19.129785231039264&lat=51.5156&lon=-0.0703&layers=163&b=1

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Rocky. The coffee stall keeper claimed the man who visited his stall only resembled George R. Sims. The stallkeeper knew it couldn't have been Sim because this other man ordered and consumed many sausages and a meat pie. I'm guessing Sims writing as Dagonet must have reported throughout his writings of some intestinal condition that didn't allow him to eat sausages, maybe. Either way, was the stall something mobile like a food cart, or was it a brick-and-mortar shop where sausages and meat pies could be cooked?

[Wickerman]

Thank you my bad. Do you think it could be that little court opposite Osborn st then?

There are a couple of courts on the south side of Whitechapel High Street, just before you reach George Yard if walking westward, and I have been trying to find this section of buildings in Goads. I've had no luck yet, it's identified as Sheet 97, Vol. V., but there is no sheet 97 in Vol. V.
Which may mean that sheet has not survived, unless someone else has better luck than I have.

[Varqm]

Lewis was under oath - and was liable for a fine if misbehaving and with no conflicting testimony, Lewis's shadow Mrs.Kennedy was not.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

Earlier researchers like Sugden may not have had the extent of press sources we have today. What they did was all manual look-ups, very time consuming.
Today, with computer searching we find several accounts from a range of newspapers, so our view is broader.

We can see the Evening News first broke the story by interviewing the Gallagher family at No.2 Millers Court. So he probably misheard the name (Gallagher/Keyler) but he is clearly talking about the same family as they say their married daughter, a Mrs Kennedy, came home at a late hour, etc.
(Sarah Lewis didn't live in the court, and she wasn't married anyway).

The Evening News include a paragraph from the Press Association interview with the same woman, so two different journalists interviewed both the woman and her family. Then there's the account by the Times which mentions that Kennedy was interviewed by the police - so we have three sources all consistent with each other.

Given the fact there are very noticeable differences between the stories of Lewis & Kennedy, when we also take into account the three various press sources - the suggestion that Kennedy was really Lewis, or that Kennedy didn't exist is ludicrous.
You couldn't ask for better indications of two women being involved.

I can see the weight of your argument, Jon. And I can see how Gareth reasons too - but he has put his head in a noose since he is trying to argue for how inherent likenesses should point to a shared identity in THIS case, whereas he has failed epically to do so in another case. So he is compromising himself rather badly right now.

Another matter of interest is how I a few years back said that Sarah Lewis may have made her story up. This caused a tremendeous hullaballoo back then, and I was told that I really should not imply that Lewis was anything but a trustworthy witness.
Now, if Lewis and Kennedy WERE one and the same, giving significantly different stories to papers and to the inquest, Iīd say that we may need to take a new look at the veracity of Lewis!

Ripperology is always interesting in these ways.