Hutchinsons statement....

[Varqm]

With respect, this is all old hat. And - as ever - I am not saying that the suggestion that the two women were one and the same is a bad suggestion. If you think that, you have either misread me or not read me at all, since I have been very clear in pointing out that I think the suggestion seems the better one.
I don“t, however, regard it as the ONLY possible solution, and so I remain at my stance that there is nothing clear about the matter. On the contrary, it is unclear and will remain so until any evidence can be presented that puts it beyond doubt either way.
And that has not happened so far.
There are only so many ways I can say this, so I think I“m done repeating myself.

Miller's court residents would have been interviewed and it would come out or be known if they had visitors the night before or that early morning,a Kennedy or any other and from there if they heard a cry.It's like how they pieced together inquiries which lead to Maria Harvey,Barnett.But there were only Prater and Lewis,none other.
But enough of this Lewis/Kennedy nonsense.

[Wickerman]

People can adopt pseudonyms for a number of reasons, e.g. out of fear for their own safety, for which it would be harsh to dub them "liars".

I would suggest the most obvious reason would be to avoid debt, the law, or prior commitments. Adopting an alternate name appears to have been quite common.
With some women I suppose we could add "personal shame", especially when they live an alternate life as a streetwalker. Their immediate family may not know what they are doing at night.

There's a degree of "lying" here that must be admitted, but in the East end various degree's of "lying" had to be a matter of daily survival for many. Not necessarily implying criminal activity.

[Sam Flynn]

It is perfectly obvious to me too, David. Kennedy was Lewis.

It is not obvious that Lewis was a liar.

What exactly is the evidence for Lewis having lied about her name AND having called herself Kennedy, David?

People can adopt pseudonyms for a number of reasons, e.g. out of fear for their own safety, for which it would be harsh to dub them "liars".

[Pierre]

I don't "want" Kennedy to be Lewis. It doesn't make any difference to me. Its just perfectly obvious to me that she was.

It is perfectly obvious to me too, David. Kennedy was Lewis.

It is not obvious that Lewis was a liar.

What exactly is the evidence for Lewis having lied about her name AND having called herself Kennedy, David?

[Fisherman]

Evening News
London, U.K.
10 November 1888

Same as Lewis testimony:

"Mrs. Kennedy, who passed a very restless night, heard a cry of "Murder" that seemed to come from the opposite side of the court, but according to her, she little thought of the awful tragedy that was then being enacted."

The police would have found the woman in Mrs. Keylers room. Her statement would have been taken before she was allowed to leave at 5 PM on the 9th.She then have to repeat it at the inquest at the 12th.The police would knew her because she was the one interviewed in Millers court.She then retold the story to the inquest of being accosted,heard the cry Oh Murder,etc..It was the one and only person,Lewis.Look at it from the police perspective.If Lewis was with somebody in Keyler's room,we would have heard of her, a different perspective on what happened.
What happened to the press,their stories, between Friday 9th,5 pm. and inquest at 11:00 AM on the 12th are irrelevant.

With respect, this is all old hat. And - as ever - I am not saying that the suggestion that the two women were one and the same is a bad suggestion. If you think that, you have either misread me or not read me at all, since I have been very clear in pointing out that I think the suggestion seems the better one.
I don“t, however, regard it as the ONLY possible solution, and so I remain at my stance that there is nothing clear about the matter. On the contrary, it is unclear and will remain so until any evidence can be presented that puts it beyond doubt either way.
And that has not happened so far.
There are only so many ways I can say this, so I think I“m done repeating myself.

[Sam Flynn]

The source of your claim is the Star, but the Star makes Kennedy the originator of the "cry of murder" claim, not a copycat.

They're entirely separate, logically independent, things.

I'm not claiming that the Star said that Kennedy was a copycat, only that the Star noted that some women were passing off others' stories as their own. Given that women were doing so, Kennedy's claim to have heard the "cry of murder" could have been another instance of this phenomenon without the Star knowing it, or even implying it.

[Wickerman]

Doesn't mean she wasn't, nor that the Star knew that she was.

Sorry but that reply makes no sense to me.
The source of your claim is the Star, but the Star makes Kennedy the originator of the "cry of murder" claim, not a copycat.

Then why wasn't she called to the inquest? Why is there no surviving police statement for Kennedy?

I don't know why Schwartz didn't appear at the Stride inquest either - you think the police didn't believe him?
Those police statements survive because those witnesses appeared at the inquest, they formed part of the court records, the police files kept elsewhere have not survived.

The suggestion that the police/coroner wouldn't want to "double up" is absurd. If there were truly two independent witnesses, each corroborating the other on hugely important points of detail, I'd expect them both to have appeared in the official record.

Why?
Does hearing a story twice make it more true?
It will cost the Coroner more in expenses, the present witnesses had a difficult time getting their expenses as it was. Macdonald seems to have been quite frugal.
Giving evidence about a man loitering outside Millers court would naturally be of interest to the coroner, Kennedy didn't see him so, I suppose, she was not called.
Macdonald didn't need Kennedy to essentially repeat the Wednesday evening & Friday morning encounters with the Britannia-man - Lewis could do that.

Maxwell told the court about Kelly being seen after 9:00 am, well Maurice Lewis had a similar story - why wasn't he called? - same reason, duplication.

[Observer]

Hi Observer

No, John Walter Gotheimer was born 39 Nottingham Place, Mile End.

#24 Calvin St seems to be, or at least recently was, offices for the Museums Association.

Yes he was, my memory gets worse. The Gotheimer's children seem to have been all born in different locations, over quite a wide area.

The Museum Association, it's certainly gone up in the World! I'd say it's life, should it be the same building as in 1888, was a lot less salubrious.

[Sam Flynn]

Mrs Kennedy, in this article is not suggested to be, as you put it, "one of many women who took someone else's story and passed it off as their own."

Doesn't mean she wasn't, nor that the Star knew that she was.

What it may support is the idea that Kennedy is the only one of two witnesses who actually did hear the cry (Lewis & Kennedy) who spoke to the press, or as David suggests, Mrs Kennedy is an alternate for Sarah Lewis.

Then why wasn't she called to the inquest? Why is there no surviving police statement for Kennedy?

The suggestion that the police/coroner wouldn't want to "double up" is absurd. If there were truly two independent witnesses, each corroborating the other on hugely important points of detail, I'd expect them both to have appeared in the official record.

[Robert]

Hi Observer

No, John Walter Gotheimer was born 39 Nottingham Place, Mile End.

#24 Calvin St seems to be, or at least recently was, offices for the Museums Association.

[Varqm]

If a persons existence is only established by that person being summoned to an inquest, there would be a lot fewer people on this planet.

There are a number of factors that do not tally inbetween Lewis“and Kennedys respective accounts of their experiences. That means that the affair is and remains unclear to a degree.

Of course, there are many things that DO tally between the accounts, and your supposition that they were one and the same is a very viable one.

But it is not proven.

Because it is not clear.

If you think I am wrong on this, we may be living in parallel universes.

Evening News
London, U.K.
10 November 1888

Same as Lewis testimony:

"Mrs. Kennedy, who passed a very restless night, heard a cry of "Murder" that seemed to come from the opposite side of the court, but according to her, she little thought of the awful tragedy that was then being enacted."

The police would have found the woman in Mrs. Keylers room. Her statement would have been taken before she was allowed to leave at 5 PM on the 9th.She then have to repeat it at the inquest at the 12th.The police would knew her because she was the one interviewed in Millers court.She then retold the story to the inquest of being accosted,heard the cry Oh Murder,etc..It was the one and only person,Lewis.Look at it from the police perspective.If Lewis was with somebody in Keyler's room,we would have heard of her, a different perspective on what happened.
What happened to the press,their stories, between Friday 9th,5 pm. and inquest at 11:00 AM on the 12th are irrelevant.

[Observer]

I don't have any directories to hand perhaps someone could confirm if no. 27 is a pub. Yes the properties have gone throrugh the roof in recent years. The builders clean the bricks up, using acid, so I can understand you thinking they were modern buildings. John Bennet's photo dates from the 50's, I can't say if they were the same buildings which were present in 1888, the numbers remain the same so it's possible they are. When I visited the street I'm sure no. 24 had a shop front, it would be interesting to see who the shop belonged to. Joseph Gotheimer in the 1891 census was described as a furrier. As you have posted in August 1888 they were in Dunk Street, their son John being born there. It's a five minute walk from Great Pearl Street.

[Wickerman]

Do me a favour, David!

I tend to think that Kennedy and Lewis were the same person, but it would be by no means remarkable if it turned out that Kennedy was one of many women who took someone else's story and passed it off as their own. The press actually tells us that this was happening; even without the newspapers, we could legitimately surmise that this sort of thing went on.

To put this in the same category as the far-fetched idea that Kennedy and Lewis were two independent witnesses is rather unfair, to say the least.

I find it strange, somewhere between odd and amusing, how one subject in this one newspaper is so consistently misrepresented.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

The Star is the source of this suggestion that several local women chose to repeat the, "I heard a cry of murder too" story. Nothing else, just that cry of murder.

The source of that story is given as, "One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court".
Then we hear from Mrs Harvey, then Mrs Prater - who makes no mention of hearing any cry of murder. Then Barnett, followed by an unknown woman, then Sarah Ronay, and finally Mrs Kennedy who, is staying in the court, and does claim to hear a cry of murder.

Mrs Kennedy, in this article is not suggested to be, as you put it, "one of many women who took someone else's story and passed it off as their own.", but is actually portrayed as the originator of a claim to hear a "cry of murder" - nothing else.

Kennedy is not claimed to be a copycat of the Wednesday evening encounter, or that on Friday morning either.

So this article does not support the idea she is a copycat.

What it may support is the idea that Kennedy is the only one of two witnesses who actually did hear the cry (Lewis & Kennedy) who spoke to the press, or as David suggests, Mrs Kennedy is an alternate for Sarah Lewis.

[Robert]

You're right, Observer, the lintels do seem the same.

The old pic shows #27 with what appears to be "The Re - " on its front. I don't know if it was a pub? Maybe Red Lion or Red Cow. But whatever it was, it is now worth £2m.

I need to lie down.

[Observer]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=61&page=128&highlight=duke+street

Here's a link to the photo, and my apologies to John Bennet as it was he who produced the photograph, #1277. If you look across to the far street, you can see 27 this is 27 Great Pearl street, therefore 24 will be a bit farther down the street. Check the window lintels, in the old photograph to the ones visible on google earth to see if they are the same, they are identical to the ones when I was in the street.