Hutchinsons statement....

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, I think it more likely that the second woman referred to is MJK, as much as anything because it was, I believe, unusual for a woman not to be wearing a hat.

I believe it was Dew who stated that he had seen Mary Jane..."with others of her class", and she was never seen with a hat. Just like the hatless woman Cox spoke with.

[David Orsam]

David.
Two women are close friends, they were together on Wednesday night. Therefore, their stories are much the same.
Women still do go out at night in pairs - that's no surprise.

I've sure they do but that's not what Sarah Lewis said she was doing at the inquest. According to the Echo report "She went to call on a woman she knew - Mrs. Keyler". In fact she makes no mention of her "close friend" being at 2 Millers' Court or of her also hearing the cry of murder during the night which is very surprising.

We don't know why Kennedy was out late on Friday morning, work related?
Lewis is upset with her common-law husband, she goes to her friend for consolation, or to seek solace?
Women do seek solace with their best friend - that is common knowledge today - so that's no surprise either.

Both these friends being at the same address, witness the same cry, at the same hour, at the same location - that's no surprise either.

It is a surprise because neither of them mention the other hearing it and Lewis does not say she was at 2 Miller's Court with her friend.

What on earth is so unbelievable about a pair of friends witnessing the same events?

Because it's 3 separate events at different times with too many similarities of circumstance and I love the way you say they are a "pair of friends" thus completely ignoring that Kennedy claimed (in the press reports) that she was Prater's sister.

The only differences in their stories are their experiences when they were not together - on their separate journey's to Millers Court.
- Lewis at 2:30 am passed a man & woman outside the Britannia, and a man loitering outside Crossingham's, and another couple who passed up the court.
- Kennedy at 3:00 am passed a man and two women outside the Britannia, and perhaps, a woman talking to two men near the court.

Lewis told the police that it was between 2 and 3 but you want to change that to her inquest evidence to make it as far away from 3am as possible. That's the wrong approach. You have to factor in that, on the Friday, Lewis said it was between 2 and 3 which is not inconsistent with the newspaper account of Kennedy's story.

A key fact is that they both passed a man and woman outside the Britannia. Don't forget that they both separately and independently identified the man outside the Britannia as being the man who accosted them on the Wednesday night. Neither of them then manage to get to sleep, both of them are sitting up, and both of them hear the cry of murder. Only one woman testifies to any of this at the inquest. It's too much to accept that these are different women.

We even have separate addresses provided for both women, regardless how anyone chooses to introduce semantics to question the reading.

Jon that’s ridiculous. The first version of Kennedy's story has her staying at 2 Miller's Court during the night of the murder, exactly the same as Sarah Lewis. Mrs Kennedy was obviously married which makes it unlikely that she was living at 2 Miller's Court, just like Sarah Lewis. It's nothing to do with semantics.

I don't see anywhere that you have the basis for an argument.

Clearly I do have the basis for an argument because we have two married women staying at 2 Miller's Court who both had restless nights sitting in chair who gave essentially the same account of separate incidents over three different time periods. But only one gave evidence at the inquest. It is highly improbable that they were two different women and all your attempts on the basis of newspaper articles to prove that they were different in this thread have fallen apart.

Yes, I get it, you don't believe it. Fine, but you have nothing tangible with which to contest these stories either.

I'm not contesting these stories. I'm saying they were told by the same woman. All you have is the difference between the names "Kennedy" and "Lewis" which is not difficult to explain.

[Flower and Dean]

What on earth is so unbelievable about a pair of friends witnessing the same events?

More than one account of Kennedy's story mention that she didn't go to sleep immediately and this is why she was awake when she heard "Murder!".

It seems convenient that they were both awake at the same time.

Nevermind that, maybe they were just hanging out and that's why they were both awake. However, why wouldn't this get mentioned at any point? Why does Lewis never talk about her friend? She mentions her link to Miller's Court as Mrs. Keyler, not the Keylers'/Gallaghers' married daughter. She never says she went to find a friend before heading to Miller's Court.

Even with you trying to claim that there was no reason for Lewis to go into detail about certain things, surely these would be things that someone would be likely to spontaneously mention or to be asked about at some point. Picture most people telling this story -- wouldn't they ever let slip something about their friend or what they did before heading to Miller's Court?

You also dismiss the address question(s) as just a matter of semantics. It may not be convenient to your story and interpretation, but it doesn't mean it should be dismissed or not looked into at all.

[David Orsam]

David.
It is the next line that we should be interested in:
"....and also a female, poorly clad and without any head-gear."

That is how Kelly is described in other accounts. We have no idea who the first woman mentioned was.

Surely you are missing the point, Jon, which is that Kennedy does not say that this was Kelly in the Evening Post article.

If it looked like Kelly, as she was described by others, that might explain why later versions of the story, improved by editorial intervention, assumed that Kennedy did see Kelly.

[Bridewell]

David.
It is the next line that we should be interested in:
"....and also a female, poorly clad and without any head-gear."

That is how Kelly is described in other accounts. We have no idea who the first woman mentioned was.

Yes, I think it more likely that the second woman referred to is MJK, as much as anything because it was, I believe, unusual for a woman not to be wearing a hat.

[Bridewell]

You seem rather unwilling to learn too, Gareth - I simply pointed out to you that I did not ask for whatever degrees you may have or not have - I asked you a question about sequential memory and detail memory, and it seems now that I am not going to get an answer from you.

Surely, if someone says he has a degree in psychology that answers the question - or are you saying that it is possible to acquire a degree in psychology without having an understanding of such terms?

[Sam Flynn]

Is it only the Daily News that attributes the "no hat" statement to Lewis? Elsewhere, it's Mrs Maxwell and Mrs Cox who talk about the hatless Kelly. Interestingly, of course, Mrs Cox is one witness whom we know explicitly mentions a worse-for-drink man and a hatless woman passing up Miller's Court... namely Kelly and Blotchy. Perhaps the Daily News reporter misread his notes, transposed that bit of Cox's testimony and spliced it erroneously into Sarah Lewis's?

Any thoughts?

[Sam Flynn]

The only differences in their stories are their experiences when they were not together - on their separate journey's to Millers Court.

Perhaps they made separate journeys to the inquest. That might explain why "Mrs Kennedy" didn't turn up. A shame, because her testimony would surely have added corroborative weight to Sarah Lewis's, and I can't imagine why she wouldn't have been called to attend.

Unless she was Sarah Lewis, of course, alternatively a scribal error or an impostor who hijacked Lewis's story and blabbed to the press.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth.
In the Eddowes case one very particular piece of evidence given by Det. Halse reads:
"The capital letters were about three-quarters of an inch in height, the others being in proportion."
That detail is not included in the court record, neither is it provided in any of the other principal papers, only the Morning Post.
And, there are many examples of this kind of unique coverage, not in any way suspicious. So lets not pretend the 'couple passing up the court' is unique, it is not.

Sorry, Jon, but here is a possible sighting of the victim and her murderer; that's a hugely significant piece of information.

The relative sizes of the letters in a piece of graffiti is neither here nor there.

[Michael W Richards]

Gareth.
In the Eddowes case one very particular piece of evidence given by Det. Halse reads:
"The capital letters were about three-quarters of an inch in height, the others being in proportion."
That detail is not included in the court record, neither is it provided in any of the other principal papers, only the Morning Post.
And, there are many examples of this kind of unique coverage, not in any way suspicious. So lets not pretend the 'couple passing up the court' is unique, it is not.

Lets put it this way Jon, its clear that many street reporters did not get direct quotes from any of the important sources, and very often they relied on Central News the same way many news sources just repeat AP releases today. That's why we see word for word descriptions in the varied newspapers.

If one paper reports something the rest do not, that would mean they accessed information that the poll of reporters working for Central News could not, or, they used secondary sources who could not be validated by the mainstream press.

At best, your "one of" quotes from single papers that dispute the clear consensus might mean that they had a reporter who gained access that Central News could not...in which case you could prove your opinion that they should supersede the more established stories, merely by providing that source,....or, they got second hand stories.

[Robert]

Hi Observer

It may be that, with anti-German sentiment rising and war looming, Joseph got spooked. Perhaps, after the marriage, he regarded himself as the first casualty of World War One.

Re John Walter, at his birth the address was 39 Nottingham Place, Mile End.

John's death was registered 3rd quarter 1891. I don't know when Caroline entered the asylum, but she seems to have left it during 1891 because she has a son Walter John Lewis last quarter of 1891 (name as a tribute to John Walter?)

She remained out of the asylum for the following two censuses.

The two other births I have certs for are Ann Lewis born May 24th 1891 and Catherine Lewis born 9th June 1893. As Chris said in his article, Joseph in the censuses called himself Joseph Lewis, and this is reflected on these two certificates. but this presented Sarah with a problem : with Joseph using the Lewis surname, she had to invent a maiden name for herself. She seems to have decided that if you are going to muddy the waters, do it properly, and therefore on both of these certificates she describes herself as formerly Smith!

There are four more children for the couple - William, Sophia, Rachel and Alfred. I don't have certs for those but as far as I can tell, those too have mother formerly Smith.

[Observer]

Hi Observer

Yes, Chris was constantly coming up with great things.

John Gotheimer died aged 3.

The elder Emily was Emily Catherine Lewis, born 3rd June 1886. No father indicated.

At the time of Emily Alexandra's birth, Thomas and Caroline were at 58 Appian Rd, Bow.

I'm not sure about fear of internment - Chris says that although Joseph was of German extraction, he was born in Brick Lane.

As an indication of how entwined things were, in the 1939 register Emily Alexandra Church nee Lewis gave her date of birth as 3rd June 1888 - the birth year was hers but the day and month were Emily Catherine's! This is also the date of birth given on her entry in the 1980 death register.

Hi Robert

Regarding Joseph Gotheimer's marriage in 1914, I thought, (considering that he had been the partner of Sarah lewis since 1886) it was a little beyond coincidence that they decided to marry in 1914, the beginning of WW1. I realise that he was born in Brick Lane, thus a British national,. However we don't know his state of mind at the time, anti German sentiment was kicking off and I just wonder if he thought it was wise to marry, and show responsibility for his wife and children. Perhaps he was fearful that all individuals of German descent would be interred. It's of no consequence anyhow, and doesn't affect the task at hand.

The fact that there is a tradition in the Castle family that Sarah Lewis was pregnant at the time of the Kelly murder perplexes me still. Sarah Lewis could not have been pregnant at the time. Can I ask where Sarah Lewis was living when John Gotheimer was born?

One other date in the story is interesting. The year 1891. Caroline Lewis you say was residing in an asylum in 1891. John Gotheimer died in 1891, and as you quite rightly speculated that Caroline Lewis possibly looked after John on occasion, I wonder if the two incidents are linked?

[Wickerman]

Can you suggest why such an important piece of evidence was never once picked up by any other newspaper, nor even hinted at in the inquest or the police witness statements?

Gareth.
In the Eddowes case one very particular piece of evidence given by Det. Halse reads:
"The capital letters were about three-quarters of an inch in height, the others being in proportion."
That detail is not included in the court record, neither is it provided in any of the other principal papers, only the Morning Post.
And, there are many examples of this kind of unique coverage, not in any way suspicious. So lets not pretend the 'couple passing up the court' is unique, it is not.

[Wickerman]

Come on Jon we have two women who had both been accosted in Bethnal Green on the Wednesday night, who were both staying that night at 2 Miller's Court, who both turned up at that address between 2 and 3am, who both recognised the same man who had accosted them in Bethnal Green standing near the Britannia, who both heard a cry of Murder during the night and who both spoke to the police the next day.

And we are supposed to think they are different woman on the basis of what I can only see is a different surname used when speaking to the press?

David.
Two women are close friends, they were together on Wednesday night. Therefore, their stories are much the same.
Women still do go out at night in pairs - that's no surprise.

We don't know why Kennedy was out late on Friday morning, work related?
Lewis is upset with her common-law husband, she goes to her friend for consolation, or to seek solace?
Women do seek solace with their best friend - that is common knowledge today - so that's no surprise either.

Both these friends being at the same address, witness the same cry, at the same hour, at the same location - that's no surprise either.

What on earth is so unbelievable about a pair of friends witnessing the same events?

The only differences in their stories are their experiences when they were not together - on their separate journey's to Millers Court.
- Lewis at 2:30 am passed a man & woman outside the Britannia, and a man loitering outside Crossingham's, and another couple who passed up the court.
- Kennedy at 3:00 am passed a man and two women outside the Britannia, and perhaps, a woman talking to two men near the court.

We even have separate addresses provided for both women, regardless how anyone chooses to introduce semantics to question the reading.

I don't see anywhere that you have the basis for an argument.
Yes, I get it, you don't believe it. Fine, but you have nothing tangible with which to contest these stories either.

[Wickerman]

Well, Jon, saying that you don't know someone isn't the same as saying that you don't know what someone looks like.

Nevertheless, you might have a point were it not for what we find in the earliest account of the story of Mrs Kennedy in the Evening Post of 9 November 1888:

"She noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia public-house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache – talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female, poorly clad and without any head-gear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, “Are you coming?” whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go....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 causes such alarm on the night in question, and that she would recognise him again if confronted with him."

Not a squeak or a hint that the woman she saw was the deceased, Mary Jane Kelly. Yet how could it be possible for her to have left this crucial fact out of her story?

Which leads me to conclude that it was a later assumption by an editor who simply thought that, in the context of the story, the woman who was spoken to by the man must have been Kelly to make sense of it.

David.
It is the next line that we should be interested in:
"....and also a female, poorly clad and without any head-gear."

That is how Kelly is described in other accounts. We have no idea who the first woman mentioned was.