Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

Her narrative suggests that she spotted Wideawake just as she was about to enter the Miller's Court entrance, seeing the man and the woman "further on" at about the same time. This would place Lewis, Wideawake and the couple in Dorset Street.
It may be significant that Lewis doesn't say that she actually saw the couple turn into Miller's Court.

The value of collating the press coverage, along with the court record, is that we end up with a more complete picture.

Lewis passed a man & woman on the corner outside the Britannia, then proceeded down Dorset street.
As she walked down the street she noticed a couple "further on" ahead of her.
As she drew nearer the court Lewis also noticed a man on the opposite side of the street, and that this same couple turned into Millers Court.
The man was standing opposite and appeared to be looking up the court.
"The man, I noticed, was looking up the court, as though he was waiting for someone."
Eventually Lewis reached the court and turned up the passage, there was no-one in the court when she arrived at No.2.

Not one source provides a minute-by-minute record of what Lewis saw, they all choose little pieces of the story.
One includes the "further on" bit,:
"Further on I saw another man and woman".

While another described the couple walking up the court:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Lewis is not there to provide a continuous narrative. She is purely responding to questions and those questions need not be posed in chronological order.
We notice this quite clearly, first she talks about walking down Dorset street, then talks about why she left home (she had "words" with her husband). So her story jumps back and forth, this is because the coroner is asking her to clarify pieces of the story that interest him.
The coroner does not say, 'tell the court what happened in sequence that night', but many posters seem to think Lewis is telling a story in sequence, this is not the case.

When a woman/girl has a "bust-up" with her significant-other, who does she turn to?
Very often, it is not her family, but her best friend.
Sarah Lewis "had words" with her husband, and as late as it was, she sought solace with her best friend, so goes to her house, quite possibly timed to arrive when she knew her friend would be getting home - from "work" or not, we cannot say.

This is all quite normal, these woman spent Wednesday night out on the town. On Friday, Lewis felt the need to leave home and go to her friends house. Their stories differ because these women came to Millers Court at different times.
However, once they arrived at Millers Court, their stories come together again.

All perfectly normal.

[David Orsam]

The value of collating the press coverage, along with the court record, is that we end up with a more complete picture.

Yes but you're treating the newspaper articles with the type of reverence that a priest might read the bible.

We all know that errors can easily creep into these articles.

What we see is basically the same story told by Kennedy and Lewis.

[David Orsam]

Sarah Lewis "had words" with her husband, and as late as it was, she sought solace with her best friend, so goes to her house, quite possibly timed to arrive when she knew her friend would be getting home - from "work" or not, we cannot say.

Aha! The story changes.

In #685 you told us:

"But here we have quite separate identities, separate abodes, and separate times, provided for these two women."

Now the backsliding. They were in the same abode!

My goodness that must have been a large abode in that small court with separate spare rooms, presumably both facing number 13, for both Kennedy and Lewis to sleep in.

[Sam Flynn]

The value of collating the press coverage, along with the court record, is that we end up with a more complete picture.

Indeed, and I'm a big fan of it. However, there could be errors and/or misleading information in one or more of them, and we need to spot those instances when they occur.

Luckily, because of the absurd notion that two separate women both happened to pay an impromptu visit in the middle of the night to stay with people who lived opposite Kelly's room, and that these two "separate" women later went on to report ostensibly the same things, we can dismiss "Mrs Kennedy" as a glaringly-obvious piece of erroneous and/or misleading data.

[Wickerman]

Well if that's the case (and personally I'm sure it's the same incident) then you still have a big problem.

Well, it has been suggested in the past that this was a scribal error. A "woman talking to two men", should read a "man talking to two women".
But, that does not take into account this incident is placed "at the court", not 120ft away back at the corner of Dorset Street, outside the Britannia.
So there is no satisfactory resolution to that detail no matter what your view of Kennedy is.

Because in the Evening Times, Mrs Kennedy said:

"Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, 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. She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed."

There's no mention of her subsequently seeing a woman talking to two men in the court.

David, lets not beat about the bush. I know, that you know, press reports are highly selective. The content is subject to at least two separate opinions, the reporter writes what he feels important, then the editor trims it down to fit available space in the column.
Please don't pretend that every news report of a particular incident, to be credible, must contain all the same details.
You already know this is not true.

If this was anyone else writing I would think the writer is trying very hard to look naive, but I know you are not naive. There are queries throughout this subject that a man of your experience should not be asking. You know better.

[Wickerman]

It may be relevant that a couple standing outside the Britannia, seen from the viewpoint of someone near the entrance to Miller's Court, would have been "further on" in Dorset Street.

?
The source of this story has already mentioned the couple outside the Britannia, that was the first detail in her story. Why mention them again, especially when they are now so far behind Lewis?

[Flower and Dean]

I would think so, but then Schwartz did not appear at Stride's inquest, we still can't figure that one out either.
So Kennedy's none-appearance is not without parallel.
We should not forget McDonald (the coroner) was also a physician (M.D. & a Divisional Surgeon), so his relationship with Dr's Phillips & Bond may have persuaded him that Bond's estimated time of death was the yardstick to use.

So, you think it's a stretch that the reports we have of Kennedy's story may be a mix-up, but you don't think what you're saying here is? Right...

Not sure what you mean. Gallagher's married daughter was obviously married to a Kennedy. Her maiden name would have been Gallagher. What we don't know is if Mrs Kennedy was living at Millers Court with her husband, or was she separated from him.

I didn't contradict any of this. Just pointing out that if Lewis was friends with her, she would presumably refer to her as Mrs. Kennedy (her married name).

A few of the police statements taken on the 9th are brief, Lewis's is no different. As Lewis did not know Kelly, she didn't appreciate the value of what she saw. A man & woman walk up the passage was just a strange couple to her, just an everyday occurrence.
Abberline did interview Kennedy...

"Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room."
Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

This report is consistent with the Evening News account, that Kennedy was staying with her parents at Millers Court.
Abberline also interviewed Lewis.

If Lewis didn't know the value of what she saw because she didn't know Kelly, then the same would be true in some way of the portion you quoted: note that Kennedy is reported to have seen "a woman" and not specifically the deceased. The main reason why Kennedy's testimony was brought up in this thread was her supposed sighting of Kelly by the Britannia at 3 AM.

If there was a mix-up about who Lewis was, or if Kennedy was lying, that's not contradicted by Abberline being reported as talking to Kennedy.

Abberline surely would have known which woman was which, meeting them face to face and all, but he never says that he doesn't so... what's your point?

I'll mention this in passing, it seems Mrs McCarthy had a customer in the shop on that morning, a customer who she did not know.

I was going to say that we don't know much about the costumer in the quote you gave, so we can't even know if that's Lewis but considering your posts in this thread... by all means, don't let anyone stop you from seeing what you want to see.

As I keep maintaining, to get a more complete account it is necessary to collate all the inquest records, not just pick one that suits a particular theory.

The Daily News account is more complete and explains what "further on" actually meant - further on up the passage (court).
" I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
That reads pretty clear to me.

Also, it only stands to reason that if this couple turned into Millers court, then they did so from first being in Dorset Street. So it cannot be argued that this couple was in the street but not in the passage. They came from the street to the passage.

This still doesn't contradict what I said. You love to keep maintaining things and claim that things read clear to you even when they don't really support your specific point.

Lewis is responding to questions, her story is not a continuous narrative.
I'm not sure what you see as irregular.

I don't see anything as irregular, I'm just pointing out that she does not say that the couple went indoors once they reach Miller's Court -- at least not as specifically as you seem to think.

There is no overlap in time. It is not easy for us to establish accurate timelines when almost every time given is an "about", which could be as much a five or even ten minutes either way of the hour stated.

You should read things more carefully before jumping to respond to them and try to "prove" points. I didn't claim there was an overlap, in fact, the part of my post that you quoted says:

Alternatively, maybe they were both right and telling the truth and Kelly left her room to go to the Britannia shortly after Hutchinson did. Who even knows at this point...

As in: if they were both telling the truth then Hutchinson could have left, then Kelly left shortly after, and then she was seen by Kennedy. I don't know what about that is unclear to you or what you're trying to contradict since what you responded basically agrees with what I said...

Given that the passageway into Miller's Court itself was so short, I take her statement to mean that she saw the couple in Dorset Street, at some point beyond Wideawake Man and the entrance to the Court itself. If "further on" meant "between the entrance to Miller's Court and the 'courtyard' of Miller's Court", then Lewis would have bumped into and/or brushed past them on her way to the Keylers' residence, which - after all - was only a short distance inside Miller's Court itself, a short hop from Kelly's room.

"Further on", to my mind, means "further on in Dorset Street, beyond the entrance to Miller's Court".

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree that it could be read this way, though personally, I'm inclined to read it as the couple being ahead in Miller's Court.

In any case, Lewis never specifies that the couple went inside in Miller's Court (which was the point I was trying to make).

[Wickerman]

Well it's quite simple. As you say, she and her friend were probably touting in the Bethnal Green Road. When she speaks to the police and coroner she tells the truth but when she speaks to a reporter she prefers to use a married name, to show her respectability, and claim she was with her "sister" when it was another prostitute.

Why say "sister"?
Besides, Kennedy's story is not the same.
- There is a half-hour difference between the timings of their stories.
- Kennedy saw two women with a man outside the Britannia, Lewis saw only a man & woman.
- Lewis saw the loiterer, Kennedy did not.

Just look at what we have to accept if they are different women. We have two married women, who walk the streets together, who just happen not to be living with their husbands on the night of 8/9 November.

We don't know that, the whereabouts of Mr Kennedy is not given.

They both, apparently by coincidence, according to you, are staying at different addresses in Millers Court that night with someone whose name (Gallagher/Keyler) is very similar and could easily be confused for the other.

Where do you get "different addresses in Millers Court" from?
They are both staying at No.2.

Despite their propensity to walk the streets together they are not together that evening

We don't know that either.
For all we know they might walk the streets at 8:00 pm every night, including this night. The only reason Wednesday night is discussed is because of the encounter with the stranger.

...but both of them on their way to Dorset Street in the early hours separately see a man with a woman in the vicinity of Millers Court.

Lewis, about 2:30, saw a man & woman outside the Britannia.
Kennedy, about 3:00 saw a man with two women out side the Britannia. The second female being Kelly (hatless).

They both had restless nights that night and both heard a cry of murder, even though other local residents such a Cox and Venturney didn't hear it, not to mention Mr Gallagher or Mrs Keyler.

No, and Cox lived the farthest away from No. 13, but VanTurney, who lived directly under the Keylers did not hear the signing either. So are you now questioning Cox & Pickett, who did?
Prater heard the cry (or cries).
Plus, we don't have a statement from Gallagher/Keyler, nor from Pickett, nor from any of the McCarthy's.

It seems this argument is intensely selective on what you prefer to accept & reject.

[David Orsam]

Well, it has been suggested in the past that this was a scribal error. A "woman talking to two men", should read a "man talking to two women".
But, that does not take into account this incident is placed "at the court", not 120ft away back at the corner of Dorset Street, outside the Britannia.
So there is no satisfactory resolution to that detail no matter what your view of Kennedy is.

Ha! A "scribal error"? Is that what they are called now?

Yes actually there is a perfectly satisfactory resolution which is that "Mrs Kennedy" was telling the reporter exactly the same story as Sarah Lewis told at the inquest except that it got garbled either due to "scribal error" or misunderstanding or whatever you want to call it.

She told the reporter that on her way home she passed the Britannia pub and saw a man in Dorset Street. This has been translated as "Passing the Britannia..she saw..".

You're the one treating every newspaper report like a sworn affidavit...except when there's a mistake which doesn't match your belief that Kennedy and Lewis were different people, then it's a "scribal error".

[David Orsam]

David, lets not beat about the bush. I know, that you know, press reports are highly selective. The content is subject to at least two separate opinions, the reporter writes what he feels important, then the editor trims it down to fit available space in the column.
Please don't pretend that every news report of a particular incident, to be credible, must contain all the same details.
You already know this is not true.

If this was anyone else writing I would think the writer is trying very hard to look naive, but I know you are not naive. There are queries throughout this subject that a man of your experience should not be asking. You know better.

I think you misunderstand my purpose in quoting from the Evening News.

It's not because I don't think newspapers can be in error. It's the exact opposite. I'm saying they DO make mistakes so please don't wave the articles featuring Mrs Kennedy and then focus on every small inconsistency between her story and the story of Sarah Lewis.

As far as I am concerned it is you who is being naïve because your entire theory rests on the newspaper stories being 100% accurate.

[David Orsam]

Besides, Kennedy's story is not the same.
- There is a half-hour difference between the timings of their stories.
- Kennedy saw two women with a man outside the Britannia, Lewis saw only a man & woman.
- Lewis saw the loiterer, Kennedy did not.

A classic example of what you would refer to as being "naïve" surely?

Everything you say about the timing of Kennedy's sighting comes from a newspaper account.

So what has happened to "scribal errors" suddenly?

The same about the man and woman.

As I keep saying, it's all garbled versions of the same story.

And I have to correct you factually. Lewis saw TWO men. One standing in the court and one young man with a woman.

[David Orsam]

Why say "sister"?

Well I suggest it's more respectable to be walking down Bethnal Green Road in the evening with your sister than with a prostitute.

But are you saying they were sisters then?

I asked you this earlier but got no answer.

[David Orsam]

Where do you get "different addresses in Millers Court" from?
They are both staying at No.2.

It came from you Jon (#685):

"But David, you are making up a story with no contemporary evidence to substantiate it. But here we have quite separate identities, separate abodes, and separate times, provided for these two women."

And you seriously think there was enough spare rooms in no. 2 Millers Court to accommodate two women, both presumably facing no. 13?

[Sam Flynn]

?
The source of this story has already mentioned the couple outside the Britannia, that was the first detail in her story. Why mention them again, especially when they are now so far behind Lewis?

So there were two couples, plus Wideawake Man? Doesn't she only mention one couple elsewhere?

That notwithstanding, it is nonetheless true, as I suggested, that a couple seen standing outside the Britannia could be described as "further on" from the POV of someone at the entrance to Miller's Court.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Was Mrs. Kennedy pregnant?

Regards,

Simon