Mr Blotchy

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Joshua Rogan]

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

[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.

[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!

[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, I´d say that we may need to take a new look at the veracity of Lewis!

Ripperology is always interesting in these ways.

[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.

[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.

[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?