Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You've touched upon another important point: the total absence of any logical motive for Lewis to have lied."
And what about the other halfdozen women in Millerīs court that had also "heard" the murder cry? What was their reason to lie? I can think of two reasons: They either wanted their fifteen minutes of fame, or they wanted to hinder the police in their efforts.
What I CANīT think of is why this could not apply to Sarah Lewis also.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

Ben:

"You've touched upon another important point: the total absence of any logical motive for Lewis to have lied."
And what about the other halfdozen women in Millerīs court that had also "heard" the murder cry? What was their reason to lie? I can think of two reasons: They either wanted their fifteen minutes of fame, or they wanted to hinder the police in their efforts.
What I CANīT think of is why this could not apply to Sarah Lewis also.

The best,
Fisherman

Because unlike the others she didnt go to the Press Fish. She just dealt with the Police and gave her evidence under oath at the inquest.

[Ben]

Fisherman,

“Proven is proven, Ben. "Utterly proven" has - believe it or not - a ring of uncertainty to it. Overeagerness, more or less.”

It wasn’t over-eagerness so much as exasperation at the clearly ludicrous notion that anyone other than Sarah Lewis was the originator of Sarah Lewis’ account. This exasperation on my part was probably at the root of my admittedly hyperbolic “utterly proven” comment.

The Daily News did not “ridicule” Lewis’ testimony at all. They passed irrelevant commentary on her appearance and demeanour (and if you endorse that commentary, I’m afraid it reflects very poorly on you), but they did not imply that she was dishonest. Sarah Lewis was the originator of the story involving a Bethnal Green encounter, and the police obtained this information from her before she had a chance to copy it from another source. She was detained, as you will recall, within the confines of the court on the morning of the murder, and was apparently only released at 5:30pm that afternoon.

If Lewis wanted to pass off someone else’s account as her own, she could have blabbed to the press at any time. Instead, that’s precisely what Kennedy did, and in light of the Star’s observations and Kennedy’s non-attendance at the inquest, she is clearly revealed as one of the women who parroted Lewis’ account. It is an effrontery to reason and common sense to claim the reverse was true. Tellingly, Lewis herself never went near the press.

“Are we to believe that Mrs Paumier not only parrotted Lewisīstory - but in fact also was sly enough to secure corroboration for her story?”

No. The nature of “Chinese Whispers” is that the whisperers concerned are invariably passing on at least second or third hand hearsay. This probably occurred in the case of Paumier and Roney, with the latter having perhaps obtained her information directly from Lewis, and Paumier subsequently jumping on the bandwagon with an “It happened to me too!” tall tale. Not so amazingly, neither woman was called to the inquest. Where is the evidence that Paumier was “able to direct the police to Sarah Roney”? In fact, more to the point, where is the evidence that the police ever had any communication with either Paumier or Roney? It’s even doubtful that the press had any communication with Roney, whose account seems to have been provided second-hand by Paumier.

“Now, just apply this to the Hutchinson testimony and realize that discrediting HIS STORY does not equal discrediting HIM! If you can do it for me, you can do it for Hutchinson, Ben!”

No, because the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account impacts directly on how the police considered “HIM”.

“No. But it moves them a bit closer to that verdict, as a general rule”

No, it doesn’t, and it isn’t a “general rule” either.

“But that does not tally with take one, the ORIGINAL take.”

If the “original take” said: “The man was definitely NOT looking up the court as though waiting someone”, you’d have a point. But it didn’t, so you don’t.

I don’t really appreciate being called “childish” for providing that recent extract from Sugden’s book. One of my reasons for doing so was to offer clarification that I wasn’t presenting a new suggestion with regard to Kennedy/Lewis, but rather demonstrating that an obvious solution to what some still regard, unnecessarily, as a mystery, was provided many years ago.

“But you somehow think that if it was not in the papers "in the know", the Star and the Echo, you can use a decapitated variety of the information. Thatīs how it goes, is it not?”

Not quite. It wasn’t a “decapitated” version, but simply the correct one. Any newspaper claiming that the witnesses “at the late inquest” described a man of gentlemanly appearance in Kelly’s company was obviously talking ill-informed nonsense, because we know there was no such witness. The Echo, on the other hand, made no reference to the “in Kelly’s company” detail because they knew full well that it didn’t apply to any of the inquest witnesses who described “gentlemanly”-looking suspects. Sarah Lewis provided the only “gentlemanly” suspect at the inquest, and he was not observed in Kelly’s company. Ergo, Lewis must have been the witness the Echo was referring to on 19th November.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Oh that Sarah Lewis, the naughty minx.

Fact is, Fisherman, that if your recent Lewis-Bashing had popular support you'd see it here on the thread.

If a person presents an idea to their peers and it is widely endorsed; that is generally speaking a clue. It indicates that the idea is considered a worthy one.

If not, and the idea is not really worthy of serious consideration; there tends to be... silence.

Ah, the sound of one hand clapping.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman:
"Mr's Kennedy's controversial statement was already published on the evening of the 10th, two days before Sarah Lewis gave her evidence at the inquest.
I don't know when in the afternoon of the 10th the papers need all their stories in so they can set them all in press, perhaps 3:00-4:00?, but this gives precious little time for your parroting to occur."

Meaning exactly what to your mind, Jon?

Hi Fisherman.
I think as a first choice Sarah Lewis & Mrs Kennedy should be viewed as the same person.
The family being visited are alternately named Keyler or Gallagher, these two names are phonetically similar, especially when pronounced in an Irish accent, they could be identical.

Perhaps we are dealing with one Sarah Louise Kennedy, she may have given her name to the constable as Sarah Louise, and he wrote Lewis?

I just find it difficult to see her being addressed as Sarah, or Mrs Lewis/Louise in Court without her picking up on that and correcting the Court that her surname is Kennedy, ...but who knows.

To the police Sarah passed herself off as a friend of the Keylers and out with a friend on Wednesday. To the press she gave her name as Kennedy as the married daughter of the Gallagher's and out with her sister on Wednesday.
Notice we have no quotes from Lewis to the press, neither do we have any quotes from Kennedy to the police.

I don't think 'parroting' comes into it, though we lack a satisfactory explanation why, it appears that Sarah was not entirely honest with the police.
There are too many details in both accounts (Lewis & Kennedy) for another person to remember. With 'parroting' you will expect a broad similarity, but there are too many points to remember.
Beside, why would anyone choose Lewis's story to copy, it's not like she has a sensational story to relate.
No, Kennedy with the press is likely Lewis with the police.

Let me answer the rest in another post.
Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

...Are you suggesting that Sarah Lewis, Sarah Roney, Mrs Kennedy and Mrs Paumier all had encounters of the kind they described with this bogey man?
I have taken a swift look at things, and it would seem that the observations were made like this:
-Sarah Roney has her encounter with the man on Thursday, in Brushfield Street.
-Mrs Paumier also meets him on Thursday, but in Widegate Street, and then she meets him again on the murder day, at 12 o clock approximately.
-Mrs Lewis? She sees him on Wednesday in Bethnal Green Road, and subsequently in Dorset Street on the murder morning.
-Interestingly, this is the exact order of things as relates to Mrs Kennedy too: Bethnal Green Road Wednesday, and Dorset Street on the murder morning.

So what do we make of it? I would be happy to hear your best guess, Jon!

Hi Fisherman.
I don't recall Paumier meeting the man on Thursday, only Friday morning.
She had heard a story from 3 girls who met the man on Thursday and named only one girl, Sarah Roney.

Lewis gave description of man in Bethnal Green Rd. Wednesday night, as:
- A man, short, pale face, about 40, dark moustache, dark clothes, long brownish overcoat, short black coat underneath, high round felt hat, carried a black shiney bag approx. 9 inch long. Trousers; dark pepper & salt.

Kennedy, described him as:
- A man, about 5 ft 7in, white face, black moustache, Billycock hat, long top coat over a short jacket, age about 40, carried black bag,

Sarah Roney gave description of man in Brushfield St., Thursday night, as:
- A man, tall hat, black coat, carry a black bag.

Mrs Paumier described the Friday morning man as:
- A man, black silk hat, black moustache, about 5ft 6in, black coat, speckled trousers, carried a black shiny bag approx. 12in long.

Hutchinson described the man:
- A man, age about 34-35, height 5ft 6in, complexion pale, dark eyes & eyelashes, slight moustache, dark hair, long dark coat, dark jacket underneath, light waistcoat, dark trousers, dark felt hat, etc.

The similarities are astonishing!

Incidently, Kennedy also claimed: "...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."

And again:
[I]"..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."[/I]
Evening News, Nov. 10, 1888.

What else needs to be said Fisherman? - Astrachan existed.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The Daily News did not “ridicule” Lewis’ testimony at all. "

"One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably"

And this is not an example of a witness and her testimony being ridiculed? This article encourages us to look favourably upon the "doleful-looking little body" that offered testimony to which not much importance was to be attached? Come again?

"Where is the evidence that Paumier was “able to direct the police to Sarah Roney”? In fact, more to the point, where is the evidence that the police ever had any communication with either Paumier or Roney?"

From the Echo:

"Mrs. Paumier stated that the same man accosted three women in the street on Thursday night and they chaffed him and asked him what he had in the bag and he replied, "Something that the ladies don't like." This, of course gives an increased importance to the statement. One of the three young woman in question, Sarah Reney by name - a girl about twenty years of age - states that she was with two other girls on Thursday night in Brushfield-street, which is near Dorset-street, when a man, wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag, came up to her, and said, "Will you come with me?" She told him she would not, and asked him what he had in the bag, and he said, "Something the ladies don't like." He then walked away." (10 nov)

So there is the evidence that Mrs Paumier could direct the police to Roney. The evidence that they DID speak to Paumier and Roney must lie in the supposition that they were thorough - you claim that they did not call the two to the inquest because they had been able to sift all the evidence and reach a certainty that Sarah Lewis was the real McCoy whereas the others were parrotts. Do you suggest that they did so by listening to rumours and reading the press, or by making sure themselves?
And all of this nonsense about only the proven truthful ones being called to the inquest! Itīs balderdash, Ben. Do you think the police believed in Maxwell? Or did they summon her because they could not exclude that she was right? Did the police summon Michael Kidney in the Stride case because they thought he was truthful? Did they collectively put much trust in the members of the IWMEC?
Wake up to reality my friend - itīs a beautiful world out there, but not in the way you seem to think!

"The Echo, on the other hand, made no reference to the “in Kelly’s company” detail because they knew full well that it didn’t apply to any of the inquest witnesses who described “gentlemanly”-looking suspects."

Aha, Which is of course why the other paper "in the know", The Star, wrote " The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been SEEN IN COMPANY WITH KELLY early on the morning that she was murdered."
There is a very clear confusion here, and thatīs why George Hutchinsonīs testimony, given at the day of the inquest, is spoken of as attaching to that inquest. The Star was in the know. The Star had all the cards on hand, as did the Echo. And there you are. Thatīs the only "ergo" around.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"I think as a first choice Sarah Lewis & Mrs Kennedy should be viewed as the same person."

"...we lack a satisfactory explanation why, it appears that Sarah was not entirely honest with the police."

We are dealing with people that may have been none to fond of said police, Jon. But I agree that Sarah Lewis makes a very unfavourable impression in this whole affair!

"There are too many details in both accounts (Lewis & Kennedy) for another person to remember. With 'parroting' you will expect a broad similarity"

Agreed.

"Beside, why would anyone choose Lewis's story to copy, it's not like she has a sensational story to relate.
No, Kennedy with the press is likely Lewis with the police."

And again!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"I don't recall Paumier meeting the man on Thursday, only Friday morning.
She had heard a story from 3 girls who met the man on Thursday"

That is correct. But if she was not there herself on Thursday, then how can she be sure that it was the same man? That was what I asked myself, and why I kept the possibility open. But you may well be right here - she may have thought Roneys description of the man enough to make the call. And if this was so, we must accept that the man was of a very special appearance - just like astrakhan man.

"The similarities are astonishing! ... What else needs to be said Fisherman? - Astrachan existed."

Quite possibly, yes. But there are a few things that are looking for an explanation in such a case:

-Why did Lewis explicitely say that bogey man did not have his overcoat on on Friday morning, whereas Hutchinson described that overcoat in detail?
-Why does Hutchinson say that Astrakhan man entered Millerīs Court with Kelly at approximately 2.15, whereas Lewis observes him with a drunk woman outside the Britannia at approximately 2.30? Note that both witnesses say that they have fixed their times by clocks.

And then there are the anomalies built into Hutchinsonīs testimony - the unbuttoned overcoat, the three-minut leisurely conversation between Kelly and astrakhan outside the court in spite of the miserable weather, the walk in the rain all night ...

Place Hutchinson there on Thursday instead, and the problems go away! Add to this that we have testimony from Roney actually placing him in the vicinity on Thursday (Brushfield Street), and we realize that if Hutchinson was in place on Thursday morning, he may well have run into the man that day.

But letīs keep in mind that if Hutchinson was there on Thursday, then astrakhan manīs visit to No 13 Millers Courts would not have been all that damning. Admittedly, though, we may have a case of Thursday scouting, learning about the lock and such things, and Friday killing.

Yes, Jon, this is a very tempting possibility indeed. If only Roney had said "gold chain" or Paumier had uttered "spats" ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moving on in all of this, we must look at two articles fom the Echo and the Star, respectively, and both published as early as November 10. Lets start with the Echo:

”Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found … Mrs Kennedy has supplemented that statement by the following - on Wednesday evening about ? o'clock, she and her ? were in the neighbourhood of Bethnal-green when they were accosted by a very ? ? man about 40 years of age. He was ? jacket, over which he had ???. He had a black moustache, and wore a billycock hat. He invited them to accompany him into a lonely spot. He made ?? strange remarks, and appeared to be ??. He was very white in the face and made every endeavour to prevent them looking him straight in the face. He carried a black bag.”
”Mrs Kennedy asserts that the man whom she saw on Friday morning with the woman at the corner of Dorset-street resembled very closely the individual who caused such alarm on the previous night, and that she would recognise him again if confronted with him.
This description of the man suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police of a man who is believed to have entered the murdered woman's house.

… and follow it up with the Star:

”Mrs. Kennedy asserts that the man whom she saw on Friday morning with the woman at the corner of Dorset-street resembled very closely the individual who caused such alarm on the night in question, and that she would recognise him again if confronted with him.
THIS DESCRIPTION OF THE MAN
suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police, and there is very little to doubt that the murderer entered the murdered woman's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning.”

To begin with, it seems obvious that the two papers worked from the same source here. The wordings resemble each other exactly almost throughout.
Now, we all know that there are two men described as entering Kellys house (if ”house” in this case refers to her room). Number one is Blotchy – and he does not in any way resemble the bogey man description. Number two is, of course, astrakhan man. And HE answers well to that description. But we only know that astrakhan man had been said to enter Kellyīs home because of the evidence offered by George Hutchinson TWO DAYS AFTER the articles in the Echo and the Sun. So his testimony does not make up the ground for the supposed entering into Kellysīhome! What it seemingly DOES, though, is to confirm it – if there really was a meaning on behalf of the police that a man of a gentlemanly appearance had entered Kellyīs home on the night of the Thursday or the morning of the Friday.

So! If Hutchinson was not the one that originally put a gentleman in Kellys room that night by his testimony – then who did? Who had furnished the police with a description of a man that tallied ”exactly” with the one offered by Kennedy, either late on the 9:th or comfortably before printing time on the 10:th?
Next up: If this man – bogey man/astrakhan man, or whatever we should call him – HAD really ”entered Kellyīs home” late on Thursday or in the early hours of Friday morning, then we may have him doing the rounds in Kellyīs room on two consecutive nights, at least if we put any trust in the combination of Dew and Hutchinson.

Why is it that I feel that something is amiss here …?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"Incidently, Kennedy also claimed: "...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."

And again:
"..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, Nov. 10, 1888."

Going by these accounts, Kennedy identified Kelly as the woman in company with the bogey man, which opens up the playground for a number of opportunities.
Either you believe that Lewis and Kennedy were two different women, in which case you may well accept that Kennedy knew Kelly, thus being able to identify her ...
... or you opt for the version that Kennedy and Lewis was one and the same, in which case we may reflect on what Lewis said at her police interview:

"Statement of Sarah Lewis No 34 Great Pearl Street Spitalfields, a laundress
Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers, at No 2 Miller's Court as I had had a few words with my husband, when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street ["talking to a female" - deleted] but I cannot describe him. Shortly before 4 o'clock I heard a scream like that of a young woman, and seemed to be not far away, she screamed out murder, I only heard it once. I did not look out at the window. I DID NOT KNOW THE DECEASED ..."

Then again, one can identify two causes for this seeming discrepancy:
1. Maybe she did not know Kelly as a person - but by sight, or (and I am tempted here ...!)
2. She simply took the chance to make her testimony a bit more sensational - the inference is that she was not opposed to such things.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Some of the postings here infringe on lunacy, I’m sorry to have to observe. The suggestion that Hutchinson, Roney, Lewis, Kennedy and Paumier all saw the Jack the toff-like ripper with his silk top hat takes us back to the very worst period in the study of these crimes, and seems more at home within the pages of a Knight or Fairclough conspiracy theory book than a discussion forum in 2011. Even Fisherman’s “confused date” seems palatable by comparison.

The Star observed on the 10th November that the one of the witnesses’ who heard a “Murder!” cry had had her account copied by “half a dozen” women who tried to retail it as their own experience. As Philip Sugden pointed our, the original witness was most assuredly Sarah Lewis. What proves beyond reasonable doubt that both the Star’s journalist and Sugden were correct in their estimation is the evidence of a handful of other female witnesses’ who did not appear at the inquest, but whose accounts appeared in the 10th November papers, and were suspiciously similar to Sarah Lewis’ in certain respects. The inescapable deduction is that these female witnesses were among the “half a dozen” women reported by the Star to have plagiarized Lewis’ account.

It explains the striking similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts, and it explains the absence of Kennedy, Roney and Paumier from the inquest. The last three mentioned were not genuine witness, but women who had learned of Lewis’ account first or second-hand and sought to pass it off as their own. In Kennedy’s case, the effort was more thorough, whereas Paumier and Roney had apparently only picked up fag ends relating to Lewis’ Wednesday encounter. There is no evidence that Paumier and Roney ever reported their tall tales to the police, and no evidence that Roney even spoke to the press.

To resist this obvious reality and to claim instead that the discredited bits of nonsense that appeared in the papers on the 10th (and which, thankfully, disappeared shortly thereafter, never to rear their ugly heads again) amount to compelling evidence of a well-dressed, top hat-wearing, shiny black bag-carrying ripper, is to adopt a fallaciously and absurdly uncritical approach to the evidence.

As for the question of why Lewis’ testimony was copied when it was arguably not the most sensational evidence, this was obviously because those who did the copying only spoke to Lewis directly and not the others. It’s far more outlandish to accept that the female plagiarists concerned interviewed each genuine witness one by one and then decided which one was the most interesting to regurgitate.

Mrs. Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were clearly not the same person. There is no way that the police would interview Sarah Lewis on the morning of the murder, only to tolerate her then giving a divergent account to the press under a different name, this time with an alleged sighting of Kelly. Had that been the case, Lewis would most assuredly not have been called to appear at the inquest. Packer was apparently ditched for much less.

Regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

passes Benz an aspirin...

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I would strongly advise saving your very interesting, very controversial “date confusion” Dewy theory for the relevant threads. The problem at the moment is that whenever you bring up the subject on this and other threads, it is always for the purpose of adding yet another implausible new dimension to it. You now appear to be suggesting, unbelievably, that Astrakhan man was the killer after all; that he did a little reconnaissance mission in the most conspicuous and ostentatious manner imaginable for that district on Thursday, before going in for the kill at the same time the next night wearing the same clothes and same black bag/parcel.

“Me again! Let’s just hope nobody stares into my face this time!”

What a terrifically efficient killer he must been – boldly advertising his presence to all hostile elements within the district at his intended kill site the night before, and allowing his intended victim to blab to all and sundry about the interesting encounter she had with an opulently dressed Jewish-looking man with a black parcel from last night.

I’m afraid that if your “date confusion” idea is to retain any credibility at all, it is imperative that you don’t adorn it with such risibly outlandish nonsense as this. It just makes it worse.

“This article encourages us to look favourably upon the "doleful-looking little body"

The journalist was commenting on her appearance. This has nothing to do with the question of her honesty, and certainly isn’t an encouragement to the readership to doubt it. Does being “doleful” decrease people’s honesty, or would it be nearer the mark that Sarah Lewis was “doleful” because of the extremely harrowing nature of the events with which she became unwittingly associated? And what about “little body” – is anyone seriously suggesting that people with a diminutive stature are more prone to lying than bigger people? The journalist predicted (without any police endorsement for that prediction) that not much importance would be attached to the specific piece of testimony relating to the Wednesday encounter, and since it didn’t relate to either the date or the murder or the victim, it was not an unreasonable prediction. Lewis was most assuredly not “ridiculed” by the Daily News, who instead made the point that her statement was supported by Prater’s.

“So there is the evidence that Mrs Paumier could direct the police to Roney. The evidence that they DID speak to Paumier and Roney must lie in the supposition that they were thorough”

In other words, you have no evidence at all for your previous assertion that Paumier directed the police to Roney. You are simply making assumptions based on “must haves” again. In reality, there is no evidence that Paumier directed anyone anywhere. She simply mentioned Roney by name and recited her (Roney’s) alleged experience in Brushfield Street. It’s doubtful that any official from either the press or police had any communication with Roney herself. Then as now, the police were not disposed to take too kindly to those "witnesses" who went directly to the press with their “evidence” rather than the police, who were actually investigating the crime, so it isn't surprising that scant attention was paid to their nonsense.

“Do you think the police believed in Maxwell? Or did they summon her because they could not exclude that she was right? Did the police summon Michael Kidney in the Stride case because they thought he was truthful? Did they collectively put much trust in the members of the IWMEC?”

They were certainly not called to the inquest in the expectation that they would lie under oath, and I sincerely hope that wasn’t what you were suggesting.

“Wake up to reality my friend - itīs a beautiful world out there”

Let’s not piss me off for no reason here, Fisherman. I’m having a hard enough time as it is trying to contain my frustration with much of the content of this thread.

“Aha, Which is of course why the other paper "in the know", The Star, wrote " The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been SEEN IN COMPANY WITH KELLY early on the morning that she was murdered."

But if the journalists at the Star were fully “in the know” they would know that there was no inquest witness who described a gentlemanly-looking suspect in Kelly’s company. I would categorize the Star as amongst the better-informed and certainly more proactive papers around, despite their reputation for hostility and antagonism towards the police, but it appears that on this occasion, they did not scrutinise the information supplied to them (by a press agency?) for errors. The Echo clearly did precisely that, which is why the erroneous “in Kelly’s company” detail was removed.

There seems to be confusion over some other newspaper articles.

“This description of the man suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police of a man who is believed to have entered the murdered woman's house.”

This was from the Echo, 10th November (thanks for posting it).

It can only be a reference to Blotchy, of course, as the police were clearly not in possession at that stage of any evidence that anyone other than Blotchy had “entered the murdered women’s house”. The age and “billycock hat” match up, at least. There is a discrepancy with the colour of the man’s moustache; although the Echo were clearly under the impression (as reported later) that Mary Cox had mistaken the colour. There certainly was never any evidence that a “man of a gentlemanly appearance had entered Kellyīs home” before Hutchinson showed up.

“Either you believe that Lewis and Kennedy were two different women, in which case you may well accept that Kennedy knew Kelly, thus being able to identify her”

But it would be much better to accept that Kennedy didn’t know Kelly and was not a genuine witness, but rather someone who had plagiarized Lewis’ account. The fact that she stated that Kelly was the woman observed in the man’s company is further evidence of this. She was simply adding elements to a genuine account that weren’t there. The true originator of the account, Sarah Lewis, “did not know the deceased”, as you point out.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

If, as I suspect may be the case, the fifteen year old Little Pearl Street resident I uncovered many years ago in the 1881 census returns was the Sarah Lewis, she had a sister two years her junior. If so, Sarah would have been about twenty-two at the time of the Ripper murders and unmarried. Thus the reference to her 'husband' probably related to a man with whom she was living. Her sister, on the other hand, may have been married. If her husband was a man named Kennedy, we may have the identity of the woman who accompanied Sarah when they were accosted in Bethnal Green. Assuming all of this to be true, Mrs Kennedy did not fabricate the Bethnal Green incident as is frequently supposed. But she may have exploited her relationship with Sarah in order to make money from journalists by passing herself off as the woman who stayed with the Keylers/Keelers on the night of Kelly's death.

Just a thought.