Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

No, my post distinctly said "I can offer you an example", that is what I did.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=416779&postcount=621

You can take it or leave it.

What Sam asked you to do was provide some examples of the "widespread practice by the police of not allowing witnesses to talk to people".

You've already slid backwards on that because now it's just asking them not to talk to people (by which you mean the press) as opposed to not allowing them. And you haven't given an example at all. You've just drawn a speculative inference from the fact that Prater didn't apparently mention the scream or screams to the press when she spoke to them. There could be a number of other equally valid inferences to be drawn from this.

You haven't provided an actual example at all.

[Varqm]

Clearly and without a doubt witnesses talked to reporters 2 days before the inquest.So I don't entertain the possibility witnesses had an official order,from the police or legal authorities, not to talk to people in the Kelly case.These were just reporters, how about neighbors and curious people who were the majority of the people interested in the case?

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. SATURDAY, 10 NOVEMBER, 1888.

[Wickerman]

As you know, I'm firmly of the belief that either Lewis was "Mrs Kennedy", or Mrs Kennedy got wind of Lewis's story and passed it off as her own...

Mrs Kennedy lived in the court.
"Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. 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."
Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.

Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house.
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov. 1888.

Sarah Lewis :.....I came to stop with the Keylers, at No 2 Millers Court as I had had a few words with my husband,...
Statement to police, 9 Nov. 1888.

The only evidence we have from the period suggests Kennedy & Lewis were two different women.
[The suggestion they were the same is an old cannard which took hold long before we had access to many press accounts which now suggest otherwise.]

As for passing Lewis's story off as her (Kennedy's) own, the fact Mrs Kennedy did not claim to see the loiterer (but Lewis did), that she did claim to see Kelly (but Lewis did not), and that Kennedy's sighting was about 3:00 am (but Lewis's was about 2:30 am), speak strongly against her 'stealing' the details from Lewis.

[Wickerman]

No. There are CLEAR echoes of Sarah Lewis's testimony in the "Kennedy" stories

That is not a response to my quote that you used.

Both women told the same story about Wednesday night which indicates they were the two women involved.
Both women told similar stories about what they heard while at No.2 Millers court, because they both were at No.2 Millers Court - together.

Where their stories differ is when they were not together.
Both women passed the Britannia at different times, and walked down Dorset Street at different times, so naturally they witnessed different events and different people.

......and others, and we know that several women were picking up "Kennedy's" story and passing it off as their own. Even if this hadn't been reported in the press, it wouldn't take a genius to work out that gossip was circulating widely and wildly, because it always does!
This is unlikely to the point of absurdity. Besides, even if the witnesses didn't, they most likely confided in their friends - which people do! - and they could easily have let things fall into the rumour mill. Even if that didn't happen, friends of a friend of a friend of a friend would have picked up on something, and even complete strangers could have picked up and run with a story that wasn't really theirs to tell in the first place. What's more, it's very apparent from the "Kennedy" coverage that this was precisely what was going on!

Bits of Lewis's story were out there, whether she purposely leaked them or not. That much should be self-evident to anyone with an ounce of objectivity.

You still have not shown where those specific details common to both Hutchinson's story, and Lewis's story, appear in the press.
You could claim these witnesses gossiped about seeing the royal coach speeding away from the crime scene if you like, but unless we read it in the press you cannot demonstrate what the weekend gossip included.

Conjecture is all you have.

[Wickerman]

Even if the witnesses were thus cautioned, there was nothing preventing their friends and acquaintances from blabbing. Equally, there was nothing preventing the witnesses themselves from reading stuff in the press (or hearing bits of gossip) and weaving it into their own narratives, even their sworn testimony at an inquest. That might shock some people, but it's a real possibility.

Of course, and we read plenty of gossip in the press.
So what are you suggesting, that the press heard those common details being gossiped on the street, but refused to print what they heard?

Where are those details, in the press, that Hutchinson (according to you) "could" have learned, to bolster his claim to have been there, as part of his deceptive story?

[Varqm]

Prater and Lewis were sequestered in Millers court until the afternoon,the police were there for hours.If they had an order not to talk how come Prater is talking to the press the next day.

[Wickerman]

But what I'm concerned with is whether Prater ever told anyone she heard two (or more) screams after telling the police she did on 9 November. It seems we both agree that she did not. Even to the coroner. So I go back to my original question as to whether she did this at the request of the police, because that is one possible inference if you think she was being manipulated by them.

Your question is very dependent on whether you believe, "Oh, Oh, murder", is one cry, two cries, or even three?
"Oh, Oh" might be said to be two cries, but is "murder" a cry or a declaration, or what?

Other posters have tried to determine what constitutes a cry in the Berner Street case - did Stride cry out or not, and what is a "cry"?
No real consensus was arrived at their either. What constitutes a cry is to some degree subjective, so why bother trying to hi-lite differences in Prater's statements?

Like I said right from the start, my only concern is Prater avoided telling the press that she heard anything that night.

[Wickerman]

But why would the police isolate this part of her evidence and ask her not to speak to the press about it? What's so special about her hearing a scream in the night?

Did they ask all witnesses not to speak to the press about specific parts of their evidence or was it just Prater do you think?

We can only determine an answer to that question by what we read in print.
If you can find any details from Cox, Prater, or Lewis, etc., covering the hours from say midnight until 3:00 am, that is then reported at the inquest, then we will have an answer.
I have looked and as yet have found nothing. Which suggests to me the witnesses all avoided commenting on that part of their story.

[Wickerman]

Jon, please think about this for a moment. You are suggesting that the police would be happy for a witness, at their express request, to tell a lie to a newspaper, saying that she heard no scream,

Requesting the witness not to speak to anyone of what she heard in the night is not asking the witness to lie.

Whether that same witness chooses to say "I heard nothing" is entirely on her own initiative.
Clearly, she did tell the press she "heard nothing", and equally clearly we know this was not true.
So, I think you have your answer, like it or not.

[David Orsam]

Your question is very dependent on whether you believe, "Oh, Oh, murder", is one cry, two cries, or even three?

No, Jon, it isn't because you already agreed, as recently as #656, that Prater's police statement was the first and last time she spoke of hearing two or three screams.

Now perhaps you want to change your answer yet again to "no" and you want to tell me that Prater DID speak of two or three screams at the inquest. But you can't have it both ways. It's either one or the other.

[David Orsam]

We can only determine an answer to that question by what we read in print.
If you can find any details from Cox, Prater, or Lewis, etc., covering the hours from say midnight until 3:00 am, that is then reported at the inquest, then we will have an answer.
I have looked and as yet have found nothing. Which suggests to me the witnesses all avoided commenting on that part of their story.

But you're just inventing a game with your own rules to produce the answer you want.

Cox didn't hear anything relevant to the murder during the night so what could she have told the press? Her only interesting snippet of info that Kelly was singing "Sweet Violets" had already been reported in the press on the Friday.

Prater we've discussed and we know she said different things at different times.

With Lewis I happen to agree entirely with Sam that she was also known as Mrs Kennedy (with Lewis being her maiden name) and with her we do find her account in the LWN of Sunday 11 November in which she was quoted as saying "between half-past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of Murder! in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated".

You say "etc." but I don't really know who else had anything to say about what happened between 12-3.

In fact, the reason why I say you are making up your own rules is because you narrow it down to a very specific time period but we know that Mrs Maxwell was giving a full statement to the Central News Agency on the Saturday about having spoken to Kelly on the Friday morning. Yet it seems the police didn't care about her discussing this with a reporter. Oh but that wasn't between midnight and 3am so it doesn't fit your arbitrary rules!

[David Orsam]

Requesting the witness not to speak to anyone of what she heard in the night is not asking the witness to lie.

Whether that same witness chooses to say "I heard nothing" is entirely on her own initiative.
Clearly, she did tell the press she "heard nothing", and equally clearly we know this was not true.
So, I think you have your answer, like it or not.

Well, Jon, the part of your post #656 I was responding to was this:

"Even the police were known to give the press the brush-off with false information, what are you implying, that this would be so shocking for Prater to do the same?"

You posted that in response to this from me:

"And she seems to have gone further by providing some disinformation (or lying) by saying that she heard nothing during the night. Do we infer from this that she was following police instructions or was she acting off her own bat? "

So I was asking if she was following police instructions in telling a lie and you responded - as far as I could tell - by asking if this would be so shocking but now you seem to have forgotten my original question.

To be clear: no it would not be shocking if Prater was telling a lie of her own accord but if that's the case then it rather undermines your theory that she was acting at the police request. But, yes, it would be shocking (in the LVP) if she was telling a lie at the request of the police.

[Wickerman]

No, Jon, it isn't because you already agreed, as recently as #656, that Prater's police statement was the first and last time she spoke of hearing two or three screams.

Correct, that one and only time.

Now perhaps you want to change your answer yet again to "no" and you want to tell me that Prater DID speak of two or three screams at the inquest. But you can't have it both ways. It's either one or the other.

I can only repeat what I said.
Is "Oh, Oh ...murder", one cry, two cries or three?

Where else does Prater say "two (or three) cries"?
Where?

[David Orsam]

I can only repeat what I said.
Is "Oh, Oh ...murder", one cry, two cries or three?

Where else does Prater say "two (or three) cries"?
Where?

Can we be clear: Are you making a semantic point here?

Are you saying that the effect of Prater's evidence (as reported in the Echo) was that she heard two or three screams (or cries) of murder but you are nevertheless agreeing with me in the sense that she didn't use the identical expression in her inquest testimony as in her police statement?

If that's the case can I be clear in return. I'm saying that Prater changed her story between statement and inquest. Do you agree with THAT?

[Wickerman]

With Lewis I happen to agree entirely with Sam that she was also known as Mrs Kennedy (with Lewis being her maiden name) and with her we do find her account in the LWN of Sunday 11 November in which she was quoted as saying "between half-past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of Murder! in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated".

Sarah Lewis's 'husband' was Joseph Gotheimer.
Both Gareth & yourself need an update, and as a result of your outdated beliefs you both draw erroneous conclusions.

Mrs Kennedy was not a witness, she was interviewed by Abberline, but not called as a witness, so yes she spoke freely. So did Catherine Pickett, but she was not called as a witness either.

In fact, the reason why I say you are making up your own rules is because you narrow it down to a very specific time period but we know that Mrs Maxwell was giving a full statement to the Central News Agency on the Saturday about having spoken to Kelly on the Friday morning. Yet it seems the police didn't care about her discussing this with a reporter. Oh but that wasn't between midnight and 3am so it doesn't fit your arbitrary rules!

Why are you assuming any police request must be honored by every witness?

Events between midnight and three o'clock are very critical for this investigation. The statements of Cox, Prater & Lewis cover this period.
Why don't you and Gareth split the task and search the weekend press to see if any of their stories appear in print, either under their own names or as an anonymous source.
If you find something then I was wrong, if you don't then, I guess you won't sleep tonight...