Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

I could not have put that better myself if I tried, David. You may have noticed that Gareth ....

I'm not asking Gareth though, I'm asking you.

[Fisherman]

Well I would l have loved to known about the number of facts that do not tally between the respective accounts of the experiences of Lewis and Kennedy which means that it is unclear to a degree that they were the same person, but if you are not going to tell me what they are then I can't force you to do so.

I could not have put that better myself if I tried, David. You may have noticed that Gareth - who I count amongst those who propose that the two women were one and the same - leaves the door ajar for Kennedy having been another woman than Lewis, but who only parroted Lewis´ story.

There are a number of possibilitites out there, and to me that means that no absolute certainty can be had about this. Opting for a stance where you say that you don´t care about other peoples views and that you are not willing to consider their thoughts because you think the evidence proves that there can be one solution only may have you presenting a somewhat dubious case as if it was clear and decided.

When I do that, I have people like you all over me like an unsavoury rash - and I don´t even say that my case is in any way proven....

[Wickerman]

I don't know about other issues but on this one you do seem to have uncritically accepted the newspaper reporting of Mrs Kennedy's story because your entire argument that Kennedy and Lewis are different women is based on identifying small discrepancies in the newspaper reports of Kennedy's story against Lewis' testimony.

There you have it, you call important differences "discrepancies". Those differences make all the difference in determining whether we are dealing with two individuals or not.

If you recall there were two stories from a woman walking down Hanbury street on the morning of the Chapman murder. They both described the same story, a Mrs Long and a Mrs Durrell. It was determined they were the same woman, because their stories were the same.
In this case the stories of Lewis & Kennedy are not the same. The names, the times, the people they saw, or didn't see, on that Friday morning are all different.

Your whole argument is based on 'what ifs'.

Ok, lets just test that claim.

What if Kennedy was the close friend of Lewis who was with her at Bethnal Green?

That is not a "what-if", both ladies claim to have been accompanied by another female. I can't imagine two "strangers" walking together on an evening, of course they were friends.

What if they were both staying the night with the Keylers?

That is also direct claim, not a "what-if".

What if they both arrived in Millers Court at about the same time?

Again, not a "what-if", they both claim to have arrived within 30 minutes of each other.

What if they both heard the cry of murder?

They both claim to have heard the same cry, it cannot be a "what-if"..


David, a "what-if" is something for which there is no evidence or claim. Just the speculation of a modern theorist.

A "what-if" is:
- What if, they were both the same woman.
- What if, one some woman decided to copy the claim of another.
- What if, Abberline interviewed both women knowing they were both the same woman.

These "what-ifs" border on the ridiculous.

A key difference between the stories of Lewis & Kennedy is of course the detail obtained through the inquest coverage by the various press articles.
Lewis relates much of what Hutchinson would come to describe in seeing a couple on Dorset street, and then they walk up the court, the woman being the worse for drink, and hatless. Lewis did not know Kelly.
All unique to what Hutchinson would relate.

Yet, Kennedy makes no mention of this important detail, but actually suggests Kelly, whom she did know, was standing outside the Britannia as she walked passed.
Kennedy left Kelly behind her at 3:00 am.
This makes absolutely no sense for the same woman to change such important details as this.
Likewise, it makes no sense for another woman copying Lewis's story to make such changes.

When a woman changes her name and provides a press interview she either claims to have seen nothing (ex. Prater), or claims to have seen/heard exactly the same details as she described to police (ex. Durrell).
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You want Kennedy to be Lewis, but have her offer different details on critical points in the story (which a third party would come to corroborate, in part), but then dismiss those differences as errors.

One of the main reason's for modern theorists dismissing the Kennedy version is because she mentions Kelly being alive at 3:00 am. This conflicts with their personal theory so they invent any excuse not to accept Mrs Kennedy as a viable witness.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: Unnecessary or too difficult to answer?

Unnecessary - just like this question of yours.

Well I would l have loved to known about the number of facts that do not tally between the respective accounts of the experiences of Lewis and Kennedy which means that it is unclear to a degree that they were the same person, but if you are not going to tell me what they are then I can't force you to do so.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Unnecessary or too difficult to answer?

Unnecessary - just like this question of yours.

I'll take it!

You´re welcome.

[David Orsam]

I will answer you instead of David, who asks a rather unnecessary question

Unnecessary or too difficult to answer?

Now, I would not encourage any idea on yours or Davids behalf that I would think that Lewis and Kennedy were two different people. As a matter of fact, I think the "They were one and the same"-team are ahead on points.

I'll take it!

[Fisherman]

Very few of significance, and nothing that can't be explained by the fact that the "Kennedy" stories belonged to the early, somewhat garbled reports in the papers. That, and the possibility that "Kennedy" was an impostor who nicked Lewis's story and retold it with embellishments, and inaccuracies, of her own.

I will answer you instead of David, who asks a rather unnecessary question - just like you acknowledge, there ARE differences between the accounts.

Now, I would not encourage any idea on yours or Davids behalf that I would think that Lewis and Kennedy were two different people. As a matter of fact, I think the "They were one and the same"-team are ahead on points.

I am just not particularly fond of the suggestion that the whole business would be in any way "clear". It is not, it is instead unclear to a significant degree, and that owes to the differences between the accounts. It is that simple.

[Sam Flynn]

There are a number of factors that do not tally inbetween Lewis´and Kennedys respective accounts of their experiences.

Very few of significance, and nothing that can't be explained by the fact that the "Kennedy" stories belonged to the early, somewhat garbled reports in the papers. That, and the possibility that "Kennedy" was an impostor who nicked Lewis's story and retold it with embellishments, and inaccuracies, of her own.

[David Orsam]

There are a number of factors that do not tally inbetween Lewis´and Kennedys respective accounts of their experiences.

Such as?

[Fisherman]

As I posted every room in Millers court would have been searched and everyone not allowed to leave until they gave their full statement.They would have found out if there was a Kennedy.They did not produce a Kennedy in the inquest.The inquest statements,as far as miller's court residents were concerned,was just a repetition of what the police already knew.
Lewis clearly is saying she had no companion.And said she got accosted in Bethnal Green,went to the room across Kelly's room and stayed,and heard Oh murder.All those events clearly happened to Lewis and could not have happened collectively to no other unless there is a parallel universe.

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.

[David Orsam]

On the one hand you seem to acknowledge widespread gossip, yet Prater does involve herself, which would be unusual.

I'm afraid I didn't understand this sentence (and don't recall mentioning "widespread gossip") so I can't respond to it.

[David Orsam]

To my mind it is a reasonable deduction based on the statement by Prater that she "heard nothing", and basically avoided sharing anything of her overnight experiences with the press.

Ah, well now, you use the expression "reasonable deduction". That's one thing but let me remind you how you originally put the point. You said in #621:

"Police did insist that witnesses speak to no-one about what they saw/heard/said, but this restriction did not extend to peripheral gossip about knowing or meeting Kelly hours before the incident."

That was put as a statement of fact. You just can't make such categoric statements from deductions, however reasonable you think they may be.

[Fisherman]

Every room in Millers court would have been searched and everyone not allowed to leave until they gave their full statement, I think part of the reason Lewis, for ex., was only allowed to leave at 5 PM.
The police would have known the whole heap of people already and possibly produced those other people at the inquest.

Every room in the court would be searched? Not sure of that, actually. Do we have any documentation of it? Not that it matters much.

Not sure what you are trying to say overall here. My point about how Lewis and/or Prater may have been rather randlomly chosen on account of the roughly dovetailing timings stands.

[David Orsam]

Where did I say it was not done?

Well, Jon, what you said was "You of all people know that when you are in court you are expected to limit your replies to what "you" saw, "you" heard, and what "you" did, regardless of how many people were present with you. The court is not interested in any "we's", "ours" or "they's"."

I didn't take you literally because, if I had, it would have been a very simple matter to ask you what "expectations" have to do with anything. Witnesses say what they want to say regardless of any "expectations". If you weren't saying that this expectation was actively enforced by the coroner then what's the purpose of the comment?

You said it was "suspicious" (or implied as much), whereas I said it was nothing of the sort.

"Surprising" was the word I used in respect of Lewis and Kennedy. Frankly, your entire argument is misguided because Kennedy doesn't mention Lewis and she wasn't in court, she was speaking to the press but still, according to you, seems to have been following legal "expectations".

And, you do know that the expectation is for a witness to keep to, "I saw", "I said", "I did", whether any witness expands into the occasional "they", "we", or any third-person references is beside the point.

You gave a very bad example then because there would be nothing against such expectations in saying "we ran" or "we looked at the body".

My point wasn't what you are saying it is. I was referring to a situation where these two good friends Lewis and Prater were both supposedly sat up awake in the same room and both heard a cry of murder yet neither mention any reaction of the other or of the other being there at the time. And neither mention that they were even staying the nigtht with the other, despite both mentioning each other in the context of Bethnal Green. And this applies both to the story told in court and out of court.

[David Orsam]

I think you have been chasing ghosts David.
Countless times I have stressed how important it is to compare & collate all versions of a story. Precisely because of inconsistencies & inaccuracies.
I wasn't clear why you would accuse me of believing newspaper stories, I'm one of the most critical readers of press accounts.
What I have consistently objected about, both with criticisms against Hutchinson, and Kennedy, is that there is nothing in their stories that can be shown to indicate they lied, or in Kennedy's case, that she posed as Lewis.

All criticisms are modern sensationalist arguments based on nothing more than "what-ifs".

I don't know about other issues but on this one you do seem to have uncritically accepted the newspaper reporting of Mrs Kennedy's story because your entire argument that Kennedy and Lewis are different women is based on identifying small discrepancies in the newspaper reports of Kennedy's story against Lewis' testimony. Without that what have you got? Two different names used, something which is not hard to explain.

My argument is neither sensationalist nor based on 'what ifs'. It is based on the fact that Kenndy and Lewis tell what is basically an identical story in respect of three separate incidents at three different periods of time.

Your whole argument is based on 'what ifs'. What if Kennedy was the close friend of Lewis who was with her at Bethnal Green? What if they were both staying the night with the Keylers? What if they both arrived in Millers Court at about the same time? What if they both heard the cry of murder?

And you say there is "nothing" to "indicate" that Kennedy lied but why, in at least one of the newspaper reports, does she refer to Lewis as her sister and a widow? I don't say that it proves she lied (because the reporter might have got it wrong) but it must surely be an indication at the very least. And no-one is saying that Kennedy posed as Lewis, rather that Lewis called herself (Mrs) Kennedy when speaking to the press.