Hutchinsons statement....

[Fisherman]

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

I never said that you were asking Gareth - I said that I find it interesting that he is discerning enough not to exclude any possibilities, while you are seemingly not.

[David Orsam]

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

I don't know why you keep repeating the reference to a "modern" theorist.

What did anyone say about it in 1888? Nothing I'm sure.

Probably because everyone who had read the story of Mrs Kennedy in their papers over the weekend assumed she was also the woman who gave virtually identical testimony in court on the Monday.

[David Orsam]

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.

Well they were obviously the same woman because their stories were the same.

I've never suggested that one woman decided to copy the claim of another so your point is misdirected.

I've also never suggested that Abberline interviewed both women knowing they were the same woman. Why would you even think I said that? He only interviewed one woman.

[David Orsam]

Yet, Kennedy makes no mention of this important detail, but actually suggests Kelly, whom she did know

No, you are wrong. We've already discussed this. Kennedy did not know Kelly. Stop repeating information from the newspapers as if it's fact. In the first published account of Kennedy's story there is not a hint that she saw or recognised Kelly. It's a later interpolation.

[David Orsam]

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.

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.

I have no such motive as you attribute to these "modern theorists".

[David Orsam]

I never said that you were asking Gareth - I said that I find it interesting that he is discerning enough not to exclude any possibilities, while you are seemingly not.

If it helps, I place Gareth's theorising about someone pretending to be Lewis in the same category as Jon's theorising that Kennedy and Lewis were the same person. As far as I am concerned, there are no material discrepancies in the two stories that would lead me to either conclusion. That's why I wanted you to answer my question but, like I say, I can't force you to do it.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: If it helps, I place Gareth's theorising about someone pretending to be Lewis in the same category as Jon's theorising that Kennedy and Lewis were the same person.

I would not say that "it helps". Nor would I say that I need any help as such. I can easily see that many - if not most - people make the assessment that it cannot be concluded as a fact that the two women were one and the same. No help required.

As far as I am concerned, there are no material discrepancies in the two stories that would lead me to either conclusion. That's why I wanted you to answer my question but, like I say, I can't force you to do it.

Spot on, David - you can´t. So you are left to lofty speculations about how I am afraid to answer, that I flee the discussion, that I know that you are right and suchlike. Then again, you have been perfectly happy about being left to such speculations before, so maybe that applies this time too.

[Observer]

Hi Observer

We all know what a great researcher Chris was. He spoke to the Church family (Church, not Castle) and he was satisfied that they were on the level, so that's good enough for me.

However, the question remains whether Sarah Lewis herself was romancing/attention-seeking/misremembering, or even whether the family somehow garbled the reminiscences passed down to them. Chris was happy that this was not the case, but here the element of caution must be greater.

I've compiled a list of the addresses of the four children of Joseph and Sarah that I know most about. First, the births :

1886 3 Candy St
1888 39 Nottingham Place
1891 14 Weaver St
1893 13 Dunk St

Now the school records. Thanks to the birth dates and father's name in these records, we can pinpoint the relevant ones. I'm assuming here that father's address is at date of child's admission.

1889 53 New St
1893 13 Dunk St
1894 7 Betts St
1895 15 Nottingham (illegible)
1897 Hayfield Passage
1898 Paragon Mansions which were, I believe, in Hayfield Passage

I'll do Thomas and Caroline's daughter Emily Alexandra later.

Hi Robert

Thanks for the information.

Did I really refer to the Castle family? It seems I did. I read Chris's research only once, and for some reason mistakenly referred to them as the Castle family. It goes to show how easily it is to trip up when rembering names. At least in my case.

I have no doubt the Church family were on the level, and Chris Scott took them at face value.

With your additional information, I am now inclined to lean towards the possibility that the Church family did indeed have the witness Sarah Lewis as their ancestor. Both Dunk Street, and Weaver Street, are much nearer to Great Pearl Street than some of the other addresses you supplied. It seems the Gotheimer family moved about a good deal. The only bug bear in their story remains their assertion that Sarah Lewis was pregnant on the fateful night during which she visited the Keylers.

[Observer]

By the way I visited 24 Great Pearl Street, now Calvin Street, some years ago, and it still remains. At least the buildings which appear in the 1933 photograph at the junction of Jerome Street, and Great Pearl Street depict. The buildings certainly look as though they belong to the late 19th Century.

I have a photograph and if I can find it I'll post it.

[Observer]

This thing I call a brain has concluded that the Emily Alexandra Lewis who married into the Church family was indeed Sarah Lewis's daughter rather than her niece - and that's because she was actually Emily Catherine Lewis born 1886. For some reason best known to herself, she changes her middle name to 'Alexandra.' Then, in 1939 and at her death, her birth date is right as regards day and month but the year is two years out.

The other Emily Alexandra Lewis (Sarah's niece) married Thomas William Smart in 1909. Her birth date at death is correct, though it's one year out in 1939.

Hi Robert

I'm not speaking after the fact, but I suspected that Emily Alexander, and Emily Catherine, were one and the same.

[Wickerman]

Names are different, of course, otherwise we wouldn't even be having the discussion, but Lewis, as we understand it, was a maiden name yet she said she had a husband so she must have had two names.

I'll have to dig up the Ripperologist article, but I seem to recall that Chris Scott said Joseph Gothiemer is recorded as "Lewis", he took Sarah's maiden name instead of his own.
If that is the case then how can Sarah have two names, if the one that was not hers to begin with was never used?

[Wickerman]

I don't know why you keep repeating the reference to a "modern" theorist.

What did anyone say about it in 1888? Nothing I'm sure.

Probably because everyone who had read the story of Mrs Kennedy in their papers over the weekend assumed she was also the woman who gave virtually identical testimony in court on the Monday.

The only contemporary mention of this issue that I am aware of is by George Sims, who wrote this only days after the accounts were published.

If a thorough and searching inquiry were made among the unfortunate women of the neighbourhood of the murders, it would be found that many of them know a man of this type (let the police show them a photograph or two of the Alton kind), and it will be found that many of them have seen him lately, and probably been spoken to by him. It was a man of exactly this type, I gather from the slight description (peculiar looking), who spoke to the Kennedys on the night of the last murder. Once fix this point and the police can narrow their search, for they will know the description and type of man for whom they must look.
Nov. 18, 1888.

The impression at the time was that two women are involved, not one.

[Observer]

I'll have to dig up the Ripperologist article, but I seem to recall that Chris Scott said Joseph Gothiemer is recorded as "Lewis", he took Sarah's maiden name instead of his own.
If that is the case then how can Sarah have two names, if the one that was not hers to begin with was never used?

That's correct Wick. As Robert has pointed out, Sarah Lewis was not married in 1888. It wasn't until 1914 that she married Joseph Gotheimer.

[Joshua Rogan]

I'll have to dig up the Ripperologist article, but I seem to recall that Chris Scott said Joseph Gothiemer is recorded as "Lewis", he took Sarah's maiden name instead of his own.
If that is the case then how can Sarah have two names, if the one that was not hers to begin with was never used?

Mrs Kennedy's sister was said to be a widow....could Sarah Lewis have been using the name of her dead husband, rather than her maiden name?

[Wickerman]

Well they were obviously the same woman because their stories were the same.

I've never suggested that one woman decided to copy the claim of another so your point is misdirected.

I've also never suggested that Abberline interviewed both women knowing they were the same woman. Why would you even think I said that? He only interviewed one woman.

This debate over Kennedy has been going on for years. I mentioned the two most prominent theories against Kennedy being an individual, you subscribe to one of them.