Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[Sally]

But I thought you had established that Lewis was a Pole

Very good, Lechmere

[Sally]

Sally:

"Perhaps we should have a Poll?"

Yes, do. And make the alternatives:

A/ It is more probable that people who change their testimonies inbetween their recordings are untruthful than those who donīt.

B/ It is not more probable that people who change their testimonies inbetween their recordings are untruthful than those who donīt.

... for THAT is the subject we are discussing here.

The best,
Fisherman

Right.

Well, thank you for clarifying, Fisherman. That makes perfect sense.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps. Not necessarily. If, as seems likely, they were in fact neighbours,....

Thankyou Sally.
I was not able to find either family (except the little girl named Sarah Lewis), in the 1891 census, so I appreciate you bringing the 1881 census to our attention.

....there is nothing to militate against the Kennedy's taking up Lewis's story and going with it to the press - is there?

Agreed. The thing is, we can spend hours inventing potential scenario's to avoid the natural conclusion. Or, we can just accept Occams Razor, that they were most likely the same woman. That is the simplest conclusion to draw.

I take your point about people using aliases, but in this case there appears to be an actual connection between the Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy that may indicate something other.

Not necessarily aliases, just other names. Alias sound like a conspiracy, I mean Lewis had a family name, possibly a married name, if he left her then she may have taken the common-law man's name. So Lewis might have used three different names over the years. I'm not suggesting she was trying to hide incognito.

Another way of looking at it is that Mrs Keyler/Gallagher may have been her mother (a, Mrs Lewis, or a, Mrs Kennedy) and re-married, or became common-law with a man named Keyler/Gallagher. So calling them her parents was a half-truth.
There is certainly something to investigate here between the Kennedy's, Keyler/Gallagher & Lewis, a future project perhaps?
A welcome result must be beneficial and save server space that these threads take up in trying to thrash these questions out..
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

...As Sugden points out, the female witness in question who provided the “true anecdote” was certainly Sarah Lewis, and Mrs. Kennedy was obviously one of the “half a dozen” women who copied it.

Hi Ben.
I hope you can tolerate my attempt at offering a little balance to your argument.

".....several newspapers on 12 November carried interviews with a woman called Mrs Kennedy who told a story which in all essential details was the same as that told by Lewis. It is beond question that they were one and the same. The difference in times and details in the various reports given by Kennedy/Lewis make it impossible to accept her as a reliable witness. At best she saw and therefore confirms the story of George Hutchinson."
Jack the Ripper, Begg, 1990, p.155.

In the JtR, A-Z, under Lewis, Sarah, we read:
"The obvious similarities between her (Lewis) story and that ascribed by the press to Mrs Kennedy strongly suggest that they were one and the same person."

I feel it is necessary to emphasize that accepting the two as one is not part of any fringe hypothesis, it is a natural conclusion to draw from all the available evidence.

True enough, but we know that in Bowyer’s case, he was specifically asked when he had last seen Kelly, and he responded:

“On Wednesday afternoon, in the court, when I spoke to her. McCarthy's shop is at the corner of Miller's-court”

Flatly contradicting the press account attributed to him regarding a sighting of Kelly on Wednesday night in the company of the man with the “peculiar eyes”.

Unfortunately we do not have the time given, if the sighting had been early, say 5:00pm - 6:00pm, I'm sure afternoon or evening would suffice.
As it is we simply do not know.
The critical issue is that the day is verified - Wednesday, and sometime late in the day, or at least after 12:00pm...

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I never suggested that the Lewis=Kennedy theory was a "fringe hypothesis". Unfortunately, that doesn't stop it being very obviously wrong. Mrs. Kennedy was a separate individual who copied Lewis' account in the manner described by the Star.

Bowyer's inquest testimony specifies that his last sighting of Kelly occured on the Wednesday night prior to the murder, not the Wednesday afternoon as cited in the clearly bogus article. The distinction between "night" and "afternoon" is very significant. It is clear that the Echo - who, unlike other press sources, were in direct communication with the police - interviewed Thomas Bowyer, and the alleged Wednesday sighting was never mentioned.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Fisherman,

All you’re doing now is antagonizing people, intentionally or otherwise. We have discussed the “case-related issues” for a considerable number of pages, and as you have no doubt picked up on by now, I disagree with your stance on this particular issue and so does practically everyone else. I don’t begrudge anyone’s right to harbour controversial, off-the-wall theories, but when they try to ram them insistently down people’s throats, I tend to get rather irritated. It isn’t quite so bad when the off-the-wall theorists concerned take the lead in suggesting that the sparring parties agree to disagree and leave it there, but that doesn’t seem to be your style. It should be, however, because that style would serve you a lot better.

Let’s be circumspect about this: you’ve only latched on to this anti-Lewis nonsense in the past week or so because you think it might lend weight to your “wrong night” speculations, which – let’s face it - were also very speedily decided upon as your preferred explanation in an equally long thread from several months ago. I’m afraid it isn’t just me who has commented on the chronic unpopularity of your “Lying Lewis” theory and the evident failure of your attempts to win people over to such an eccentric, dotty notion.

“That a police force that has a testimony changed totally becomes wary of a possible lie?”

Ah no.

“Changed totally” is a Fishism and nothing more.

Everyone else who has commented on this matter on this thread utterly rejects the idea that a “total change” took place in Lewis’ testimony, probably because the idea is such obvious nonsense. Garry Wroe, whose background in psychology certainly trumps yours, has observed that sleep deprivation prior to the taking of evidence can affect a witness’ ability to recall certain details. In addition, it is clear that Sarah Lewis suffered a very harrowing experience, the strains of which were evident from her countenance of the day of the inquest. The inference being that only an unsympathetic, unimaginative, gauche, soulless buffoon of a policeman would cast doubt on her testimony because of the negligible and entirely understandable deviations therein.

“Secondly, I hope for work along this line that opens up for an evidence-based realization that George Hutchinson was not the killer.”

Aha. Oh dear. Yes. I guessed this might have been the ultimate super-objective all along.

I’m afraid I have long suspected that your ultimate conclusion had long been decided upon in advance, and that all these interminable sub-debates concerning Toppy, date confusion, and now Lewis the Liar, have merely been alternative avenues for getting to your pre-decided destination – the "exoneration" of Hutchinson. It seems that all along, you were stationed at A, wanted to get to C, but weren’t too fussy about B.

This is the overwhelming impression I have at the moment.

“That convinced a good deal of merited Riperologists, as you will recall.”

No, I don’t recall.

Probably because it didn’t happen.

But what’s a “merited Ripperologist”?

“Well, I donīt reject it. I always thought that highly merited policemen ought to have something valuable to say about the cases they worked.”

There’s that “merited” word again.

I thought Dew was a bit of a freshman in 1888, who got lots of things terribly wrong in his 1938 book that was riddled with mistakes?

Whoops, wrong thread!

“But it may lack some sense not to make use of police informants if you have them at your disposal, does it not?”

…Which is what the Echo did, and which is why they didn’t report the erroneous detail that a “gentleman” was described by an inquest witness as having been seen in Kelly’s company.

“No! They did no such thing. They spoke of a man that "caused much alarm" - and BOGEY MAN sure did, harassing women. Blotchy caused no alarm at all.”

If you’re going to be this obstinate, you’ll never be disabused of your wrongness. Kennedy said that the man she saw on Friday looked like the man she saw on Wednesday. The Echo said that this same man looked like Blotchy. You appear to be getting vastly and inexplicably confused about the Echo’s use of the word “previous”. Wednesday 7th November 1888 happened previously to Friday 9th November. Okay? As for the colour of the man’s moustache, just read what I wrote in my last post and save yourself the bother of repeating the original point: the Echo were clearly under the impression that Mrs. Cox was mistaken as to the colour of the man’s moustache, and reported as much on 14th November. The “bogey man” does not enter into the equation for the simple reason that nobody mentioned any such man entering the court with Kelly – with the exception of Mary Cox - until Hutchinson chimed in, opportunely, on 12th November.

"Have you ever seen a redhaired, blotchy man with a pale complexion - and with DARK brown eyes, Ben? I know I have not.”

Mrs. Cox never specified “red” hair.

And who’s going to distinguish dark brown eyes from any other shade of brown eyes in darkness at 11:45pm? And who said Blotchy had a pale face?

“So, Ben, you think that Bowyer is not to believed since he said one thing first and then changed it? You thin - perhaps - that this points to him not being truthful?”

No.

I don’t believe Bowyer was the author of this dubious account, personally.

He said nothing about this sighting at the time of his Echo interview (which we discussed back in this days before this thread took a turn for the silly).

Speaking of silly, I’m in bewildered horrified astonishment at your suggestion that Lewis was offered a “polstered, rather comfy chair” in – yep! - Miller’s Court, Dorset Street, in a room the same size as Kelly’s. Not only that, Lewis received “the BEST chair the household could offer” according to Fisherman. The implication being that the Keylers sifted through their furniture emporium before selecting the “BEST” chair. What amusing nonsense!

“I am dead tired of having to respond to unsubstantiated accusations, you see.”

As sorry as I am for your displeasure, if would suggest that if you’re that put out, it might be an idea to pop yourself along to the Stride or Kosminski threads and see if you have better luck there.

[Rubyretro]

Here's a red haired person with brown eyes Fish -the women's 'make up' pages have just people looking advice on cosmetics.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"All you’re doing now is antagonizing people, intentionally or otherwise"

Ben, you have spent a good many posts telling me that my views are embarrasing, you have stated that my thinking borders on lunacy ad you call suggestions of mine utter rubbish. You have called the Dew connection the "Dew Poo! and the "Dew Spew". You have claimed that nobody at all agrees with my stupid suggestions.

Going from there to telling ME that I am antagonizing people is simply silly. It is also patently untrue, as we can see from Jonīs quotation of Paul Begg:

"The difference in times and details in the various reports given by Kennedy/Lewis make it impossible to accept her as a reliable witness. At best she saw and therefore confirms the story of George Hutchinson."

This is exactly what I have been saying. It is also the exact thing you have said that no sane person would agree with. The conclusion can only be one: Paul Begg is insane.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that photo, Ruby! In spite of it portraying a girl with pale BLUE eyes on my computer, Iīm sure you solved the case!

Oh, and when you go looking for pictures next time, please keep in mind that I spoke of DARK brown eyes - the kind of eyes that are very common among people living in the Mid-east, for example. You know, that stretch of land where all the blotchy people with carroty moustaches come from.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Brown Eyes

Fish - I don't know where you get this idea from - of course there are red-haired people with brown eyes (in this country, certainly). Red hair is a recessive gene; brown eyes are a dominant gene - so it's quite possible to get a red haired person with brown eyes, particularly if one, or both of that person's parents has brown eyes. There are quite a lot of them around, comparatively. There's a girl who gets the train home with me sometimes, for example. That's all, really.

[Sally]

Like this...



(this isn't the girl from the train, though)

[Sally]

Thankyou Sally.
I was not able to find either family (except the little girl named Sarah Lewis), in the 1891 census, so I appreciate you bringing the 1881 census to our attention.

That's alright, Wickerman, you're welcome. It's what I like to call 'fun'

Agreed. The thing is, we can spend hours inventing potential scenario's to avoid the natural conclusion. Or, we can just accept Occams Razor, that they were most likely the same woman. That is the simplest conclusion to draw.

I don't discount the possibility, but I think because there is apparently an independent connection (possibly) between Lewis and Kennedy, it's worth considering further.

Not necessarily aliases, just other names. Alias sound like a conspiracy, I mean Lewis had a family name, possibly a married name, if he left her then she may have taken the common-law man's name. So Lewis might have used three different names over the years. I'm not suggesting she was trying to hide incognito.

If my identification of Lewis is correct in the record, she married another Lewis. I am working on the assumption that there was an extended Lewis clan in Whitechapel, which might also have included Morris Lewis - but it's earlly days yet.

That bein the case, there is no reason why she couldn't have been married in 1888, and had a spat with her husband. I don't discount the possibility on the other hand, that Mrs Kennedy (Caroline Kennedy) and Mrs Keyler were one and the same; but this doesn't militate against the possibility that Mary Ann Kennedy passed herself off as 'Mrs' Kennedy.

Head Spinning!

Another way of looking at it is that Mrs Keyler/Gallagher may have been her mother (a, Mrs Lewis, or a, Mrs Kennedy) and re-married, or became common-law with a man named Keyler/Gallagher. So calling them her parents was a half-truth.

There is certainly something to investigate here between the Kennedy's, Keyler/Gallagher & Lewis, a future project perhaps?

I'm working on it, yes. One of the difficulties is that all those Polish Lewis's appear all of a sudden - because they were immigrants, obviously; so it's difficult to know anything much about them before that point. Its a tangle, but you never know - something might come out of it!

[Ben]

I participated in two very interesting and enjoyable podcasts with Paul and others a year or so ago on the subject of Mary Kelly, and I'm sure Kennedy and Lewis were discussed. At no point in either discussion did any of the panelists impugn the latter's honesty.

[Wickerman]

Why Lewis and not Kennedy?

I understand Lewis's honesty has been questioned, but so has Kennedy's (right Ben?), not to mention Hutchinson's too.

It seems to me that all those who don't like what these respective witnesses are saying choose to accuse them of dishonesty as a means of defending their own biase.

Am I the only one who is treating these witnesses with the respect they deserve?

Then there's Caroline Maxwell & Maurice Lewis........ (stirring the pot), whose going to jump to their defence?
:-)

[Sally]

Hi Wickerman

It seems to me that all those who don't like what these respective witnesses are saying choose to accuse them of dishonesty as a means of defending their own biase.

I think that can happen, yes. On the other hand, details from the accounts of these witnesses often changed over time; so I think a certain degree of interpretation by modern commentators is inevitable.

Point's moot to an extent, anyway, because in many cases we know little about these people; which means that our knowledge base is extremely limited.

If we knew more, our ideas may well change and develop. If, for example; I knew that Hutchinson was in fact a butcher who was living opposite Bucks Row at the time of the murders, I might be inclined to be a bit more suspicious.

Just an example. Or, for another example; does Sarah Lewis being a Polish Jew alter our perceptions of her? What would we think about Morris Lewis if he was related to her? How would we perceive Bowyer if it transpired that he had a history of violence?

Witnesses are problematic, aren't they? Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell - can they both have been mistaken? And what about his assertion that he had known Kelly for 5 years?

There's so much we don't know. There is, however, no evidence - or even any substantial suggestion - that Sarah Lewis lied in her testimony.

There has to be a certain amount of leeway for the development of detail in a witness account - otherwise, to be fair we'd have to say that Lewis, Bowyer, Hutchinson - and others, were all liars.

I'm not sure that would suit.

As an aside, Kennedy was a press witness so far as we know, wasn't she? Interesting, but without the weight of police witnesses in my view.

All the best