Mr Blotchy

[Fisherman]

But it's the uncanny similarities that make it impossible to believe that "Kennedy" and Lewis were two independent and reliable witnesses. Independent people just don't have such specific and unusual experiences in common.

...and independent killers simply do not cut away abdominal walls in flaps, steal rings from their victims fingers, rip from ribs to pubes, attack prostitutes, take out uteri, cut out hearts. If the rule you try to establish works for people visiting friends (VERY common), then it sure as hell must apply to eviscerating serialists (VERY uncommon) too!

[Sam Flynn]

When researching an issue such as this, it is not the similarities which make the argument, but the differenced.

But it's the uncanny similarities that make it impossible to believe that "Kennedy" and Lewis were two independent and reliable witnesses. Independent people just don't have such specific and unusual experiences in common.

[Joshua Rogan]

I think Jon has it right, and it was probably one of the two courts almost opposite the entrance to George Yard.

[RockySullivan]

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

[Wickerman]

Hi Rocky.

The Galloway account seems to suggest this Blotchy character was walking west along Whitechapel High Street, from the Church towards Commercial Street.
When he came close to George Yard, he entered a small court opposite (on the south side of Whitechapel High Street), because it says that when he emerged again he crossed the road and walked up Commercial Street.
So he must have emerged from a court on the south side of Whitechapel High Street (though Galloway called it Whitechapel Road).

[RockySullivan]

Nice thanks Jon. So when they say nearing George Yard do they mean the space you see on the map along the middle of the street named George Yard? If so it looks like the only court along that route is the small court right next to it where the g starts in george

[Wickerman]

The route described should be within this map.
Thrawl Street - top left.
The Church - middle right (by the L in Chapel)
George Yard - runs through the H in Chapel.

A coffee stall may have been on wheels, and mobile to set up where the crowds were located on any given night.

[RockySullivan]

does anyone know where the coffee stall in Winslow's story was located? is the coffee stall holder's story found in a press report just after the double event?

A SUSPECTED INDIVIDUAL

... He was short, stout, about 35 to 40 years of age. His moustache, not a particular heavy one, was of a carroty colour, and his face was blotchy through drink and dissipation. He wore a long, dirty, brown overcoat, and altogether presented a most villainous Appearance. I stood still and watched him. He darted back almost immediately to the other side of the road, and then, apparently to avoid a group of women a little further on, crossed the road again. I determined to follow him, and just before reaching the coffee-stall past the church he again crossed the road. On nearing George-yard he crossed over and entered a small court. He reappeared in a couple of minutes

when the man entered the small court, did he go inside somewhere?

[Wickerman]

Yes Gareth, you notice Michael takes a similar point of view, in saying...

So thats different people, in the same courtyard, with the same account, and the same timing?

When researching an issue such as this, it is not the similarities which make the argument, but the differences.

You may notice in a number of those fringe theories like, the Flat Earth, or We never went to the Moon, or Was God an Astronaut. By and large these theorists dwell on perceived similarities. While the serious researcher looks for differences.

How many times have we talked about handwriting analysis, and how many times do people on here look for similarities?
Yet the serious analyst knows that we are all generally taught to write the same way, so similarities are to be expected. It is the differences which make or break the argument.
Differences indicate idiosyncrasies between two different writers which enables the analyst to identify whether the author is the same in both cases.

Here, as Michael has done, and if I recall correctly, you made a similar argument. You both point out similarities between the actions of Lewis and Kennedy. People do the same things, this is life, especially friends.
They both slept in a chair because that was all there was, the parents get the bed. McCarthy only provided one bed per unit, younger ones sleep on the floor.

They both arrived within a half hour of each other, yes of course.
When a woman (Lewis) has had a barney with her live-in partner she seeks solace with her best friend (Kennedy). She wants to tell her story to get sympathy, this is what women do.

Both women tell a similar story about Wednesday night, Lewis said she was with a friend, Kennedy is reputed to have said "with her sister". As we know the family at No.2 described Kennedy as their daughter, then we now know Lewis was the correct version - she was with a friend.
Likely the reporter wrote "sister" by mistake, but it doesn't matter we have two independent sources indicating Lewis was indeed with a "friend".

It doesn't matter how many similar details we find between their two stories, it is the differences which enable us to determine that they are two separate women.
Even at the time no-one believed they were the same woman. This is purely a modern theory, guesswork, and quite wrong.

Look for differences in a situation such as this, not the similarities. Life is full of coincidences, we all do similar things, especially with a friend. Identify the differences, that is how we approach this kind of problem.

[Sam Flynn]

"A considerable proportion of these statements prove to have been made simply for the love of notoriety, while others are inspired by the hope of obtaining money from the police or from credulous reporters."

I dare say

[Wickerman]

Not sure Jon. I just interpret "working in concert with the police" as he was doing the same thing they were. i.e scouring the area for potential suspects.

From the report it would appear this man attracted the attention of Galloway because he so closely resembled the Cox suspect.

Was this just Galloway's over-active imagination, or was this man intentionally dressing up to look like the Cox suspect, at the behest of police?
If the latter, then how would this help the police to look for suspects?

[Wickerman]

The original account on the 16th was probably from an agency, because it appeared in both the Evening News & the Star, on the same evening.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881116.html?printer=true

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881116.html

In addition to the above, it appears this story first saw the light of day in the morning press.
The Aberdeen Press of Nov. 16th, give the source as the Central News.
And following what we read in the previous two links above, the Aberdeen Press include a further paragraph from the Central News report:

[jerryd]

Yes, but if he was helping police, in what way was this helping police?

Not sure Jon. I just interpret "working in concert with the police" as he was doing the same thing they were. i.e scouring the area for potential suspects.

[Wickerman]

Could he have been a plain clothes cop or a member of the Vigilance Committee? I've read several reports that the police didn't know who was who sometimes because of the transferered in cops from other stations and the undercover Vigilantes.

Yes, but if he was helping police, in what way was this helping police?

[Wickerman]

No Michael, actually you are merely cherry-picking.
People who had no bed slept on chairs, that was normal. More comfortable than the floor.

These are the questions you need to explain...

- Why you think Lewis (if Kennedy) would say she was at the Britannia "about 3:00", but tell the court (as Lewis) that she was at the Keylers at 2:30", is a problem.

- Why you think Lewis (if Kennedy) would say she was with Kelly outside the Britannia, but tell the court (as Lewis) that she didn't know Kelly, is another problem.

- Why you think Lewis (if Kennedy) would say there was one man, but two women, outside the Britannia, yet tell the court (as Lewis) there was one man & one woman outside the Britannia, is another problem.

- Why you think Lewis (if Kennedy) would omit mentioning the loiterer, and the second couple in Dorset St. as she entered the court, yet tell the court (as Lewis) she did see this loiterer watching another man & woman enter the court, is yet again, another problem.

Plus, the Family at Millers court describing their married daughter as "Mrs Kennedy".

Confront all the issues Michael, not just the one's you find easy to dismiss.