Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

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Both Gareth & yourself need an update, and as a result of your outdated beliefs you both draw erroneous conclusions.

I'm fully aware of that thanks Jon.

As I posted on this forum on 4 July 2016 in the Morris Lewis Revisited thread (#28):

"Now, Chris Scott established that Sarah Lewis was living with (but had not, in fact, officially married) a man named Joseph Gotheimer in 1888. So, as his common law wife, she could have been calling herself "Mrs Gotheimer". But an English woman speaking to journalists might not have wanted to call herself by a foreign sounding name yet she still wanted to have the respectability attached to the title of "Mrs" so, in my opinion, she called herself "Mrs Kennedy."

As far as I'm concerned, when you compare the stories of Lewis and Kennedy it's perfectly obvious they are the same person.

[David Orsam]

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...

Well I believe I've already found one. The statement of Sarah Lewis a.k.a. Mrs Kennedy.

Oh but, of course, she might simply not have been honouring the police request. And nothing is proved either way.

So why don't you spend the rest of weekend finding an actual example of a witness stating that they had been told not to discuss their forthcoming inquest evidence with the press?

[Wickerman]

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.

A police request not to speak of anything she may have heard over night is not an invitation to lie to anyone.
The police are on record as lying to the press - or at least being so accused by the press.

Example:
"The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard, denied that such an arrest had been made, but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives."
Echo, 10 Sept.

...How many of the "suspects" have been detained is, of course, unknown, inasmuch as the police are not only reticent, but really discourteous, in their demeanour towards Press inquiries.
Echo, 2 Oct.

[Pierre]

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?

"Changed her story". INTENTionally?

[Flower and Dean]

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.]

Well, I disagree. If Kennedy was reported in the press as early as Nov. 10, then why wasn't she at the inquest? Why don't we have more information about her? I would think Kennedy would be more relevant to the investigation than Lewis, since Kennedy supposedly saw Kelly but Lewis doesn't confirm the identities of anyone she saw that night.

This makes me think there's something going on. If they weren't the same person, it sounds at least likely that Kennedy's story was either embellished or misreported.

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.

How can you be sure of this? You quoted a report in which Kennedy is identified as the married daughter of a couple called Gallagher. Lewis gives her friend's name as Mrs. Keyler at the inquest and in the police statement.

The same quote says that Kennedy went home late and was near the Britannia at 3 AM. Lewis never mentions having to wait for her friend or her friend going out once again. You'd think she would have or that the authorities would have been interested in this.

So... which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't quote two different sources where the friend's name is given as Keyler and then claim that this friend's name actually was Kennedy.

I would like as much as anyone to believe the Kennedy story since it would clear up a lot of questions. On the other hand, we really don't have enough to go on to establish that Kennedy was real, telling the truth, and that it was all accurately reported.

Lewis was responding to the coroner's questions. She saw the couple pass up the court (passage), then (presumably, as she followed some distance behind), she says: "There was no-one in the court".
So, as this couple cannot vanish into thin air, and there was no other exit, then the conclusion that can safely be drawn is that she saw no-one in the court because the couple must have gone indoors.

The man with the hat was also in the court and she describes him before the "there was no-one in the court", did he go indoors too?

[Wickerman]

Well I believe I've already found one. The statement of Sarah Lewis a.k.a. Mrs Kennedy.

Oh but, of course, she might simply not have been honouring the police request. And nothing is proved either way.

Did you not read this post?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=416843&postcount=663

I thought you were a "dot the I's, cross the T's", type of person?
What more could we possibly want to indicate Lewis & Kennedy were two different people?

So why don't you spend the rest of weekend finding an actual example of a witness stating that they had been told not to discuss their forthcoming inquest evidence with the press?

Who are they going to tell?

[Sam Flynn]

Did you not read this post?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=416843&postcount=663

I thought you were a "dot the I's, cross the T's", type of person?
What more could we possibly want to indicate Lewis & Kennedy were two different people?

They are either the same person, or "Kennedy" nicked Lewis's story, or a pressman made a c0ck-up. For Lewis and "Kennedy" to have been two genuine, but different witnesses, we would have to believe:

a) That the Keylers and the Gallaghers both occupied a room opposite Kelly's at Miller's Court;

b) That both the Keylers and the Gallaghers received a female visitor in the small hours of the morning of Kelly's murder;

c) That both Lewis and "Kennedy" saw the deceased with a respectably-dressed man who accosted both Lewis and "Kennedy" in Bethnal Green a couple of days previously.

... all of which are, frankly, so improbable as to border on the ridiculous.

[David Orsam]

Did you not read this post?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=416843&postcount=663

I thought you were a "dot the I's, cross the T's", type of person?
What more could we possibly want to indicate Lewis & Kennedy were two different people?

Yes of course I read it and was wholly unconvinced. Are you not aware that newspapers sometimes make mistakes?

If they were different people how you can you possibly account for this story from the Evening News of 10 November 1888?

"So far as can be ascertained, Mrs. Kennedy is the only person who heard the cry of "Murder" that came from the unfortunate woman. In connection with Mrs. Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on Wednesday night last, accosted by a man when they were walking down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight o'clock when this occurred."

Just compare with the testimony of Sarah Lewis at the inquest:

"About Wednesday night at 8 o'clock I was going along Bethnal Green Road with another female and a Gentleman passed us he turned back & spoke to us, he asked us to follow him, and asked one of us he did not mind which we refused, he went away, and came back & said if we would follow him he would treat us - he asked us to go down a passage - he had a bag he put it down saying what are you frightened of...."

Two women who both heard a cry of murder in Millers Court during the night of 8/9 November and who were (in the company of another woman) accosted by a man in Bethnal Green Road at 8pm on the previous Wednesday!

The only sensible conclusion is that Miss Lewis was also Mrs Kennedy.

[Wickerman]

Well, I disagree. If Kennedy was reported in the press as early as Nov. 10, then why wasn't she at the inquest?

Kennedy did not see the loiterer, and as both women heard the same cry, from the same location, at about the same time, there is no need to have two witnesses repeat the same detail.
The coroner appeared to be interested in this loiterer so Lewis was chosen to testify.

How can you be sure of this? You quoted a report in which Kennedy is identified as the married daughter of a couple called Gallagher. Lewis gives her friend's name as Mrs. Keyler at the inquest and in the police statement.

Right, the family of Gallagher's were Irish, or at least the husband was. There is no contention in pronouncing Gallagher as Kellegher or Keyler, in fact Keyler is derived from Kellegher/Gallagher.

The same quote says that Kennedy went home late and was near the Britannia at 3 AM. Lewis never mentions having to wait for her friend or her friend going out once again. You'd think she would have or that the authorities would have been interested in this.

No, You might think she would have, but she had no reason to. If you have ever been in a court you would know that the witness does not speak until spoken to. And, is there to respond to questions, not give an ad-lib narrative of what they did and why.

The man with the hat was also in the court and she describes him before the "there was no-one in the court", did he go indoors too?

Where do we read that Lewis saw this man in the court?

[Wickerman]

Yes of course I read it and was wholly unconvinced. Are you not aware that newspapers sometimes make mistakes?

Make mistakes?
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.

If they were different people how you can you possibly account for this story from the Evening News of 10 November 1888?

"So far as can be ascertained, Mrs. Kennedy is the only person who heard the cry of "Murder" that came from the unfortunate woman. In connection with Mrs. Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on Wednesday night last, accosted by a man when they were walking down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight o'clock when this occurred."

Yes, Sarah Lewis apparently avoided the press over that weekend, only her companion was talking to the press. The press knew nothing of Sarah Lewis as a witness.

Just compare with the testimony of Sarah Lewis at the inquest:

"About Wednesday night at 8 o'clock I was going along Bethnal Green Road with another female and a Gentleman passed us he turned back & spoke to us, he asked us to follow him, and asked one of us he did not mind which we refused, he went away, and came back & said if we would follow him he would treat us - he asked us to go down a passage - he had a bag he put it down saying what are you frightened of...."

There's a little detail not admitted by Lewis, but is spoken of by Kennedy.
"The stranger refused to stand Mrs. Kennedy and her sister a drink,"
That suggests to me those women had accosted this man to start with. For me it raises the question of why were they out that night, part-time prostitutes?
("Laundress" was often a euphemism for prostitute in the 19th century.)
Only this prospect (the stranger) backfired on them, they picked a 'wrong-un', who scared the bejesus out of them.

The only sensible conclusion is that Miss Lewis was also Mrs Kennedy.

Only when you reject the stated identities provided by both women that shows they were different people.

[Sam Flynn]

Sarah Lewis apparently avoided the press over that weekend, only her companion was talking to the press.

Who was Lewis's companion, Jon?

[David Orsam]

So, Jon, your theory is that these two women with two separate abodes and separate identities, albeit that they were both staying that night with someone with a very similar surname, were both out together in Bethnal Green Road together on the Wednesday and both heard the cry of murder in Millers Court during the night?

Okay right.

So Mrs Kennedy must be the sister of Sarah Lewis must she not because Kennedy told the Evening News that she was out with her sister? But hold on if she's her sister then Gallagher must also be Lewis' father so suddenly Lewis is a "married daughter" of Gallagher, thus fitting the description in the newspaper article!

But wait, I imagine you will say it's not as simple as that. Lewis and Kennedy were not sisters at all, they were prostitutes. So Kennedy was lying to to the newspaper reporter???

But if she was lying about that how do we know she was telling the truth about her relationship to Gallagher? That just happens to be the only bit in her reported statement that you highlighted in bold to show the difference between her and Lewis.

Perhaps Gallagher was her pimp. Would that not solve the puzzle? Perhaps that would easily explain the variations and inconsistencies between the Kennedy and Lewis stories, yet with Lewis/Kennedy being the same person?

When you look at it objectively it's perfectly clear that Lewis and Kennedy were the same person with Kennedy being her married name, or rather the name she preferred to use as her married name.

[Sam Flynn]

When you look at it objectively it's perfectly clear that Lewis and Kennedy were the same person with Kennedy being her married name, or rather the name she preferred to use as her married name.

Alternatively, Kennedy stole Lewis's story or a newspaper reporter screwed up.

Either way, it's clear that Sarah Lewis's story - or versions of it - was already in the public domain on November 10th, and probably sooner.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

How could Mrs. Kennedy have seen "the deceased" outside the Britannia at 3.00 am when, according to GH "the deceased" had been in Room 13 with Mister Astrakhan since around 2.15 am?

Alternatively, how can GH's story be true when, according to Mrs Kennedy, "the deceased" was outside The Britannia at 3.00 am?

Regards,

Simon

[Flower and Dean]

Kennedy did not see the loiterer, and as both women heard the same cry, from the same location, at about the same time, there is no need to have two witnesses repeat the same detail.
The coroner appeared to be interested in this loiterer so Lewis was chosen to testify.

But Kennedy supposedly saw Kelly. Wouldn't that be of interest since it would help establish where the victim was last seen?

Right, the family of Gallagher's were Irish, or at least the husband was. There is no contention in pronouncing Gallagher as Kellegher or Keyler, in fact Keyler is derived from Kellegher/Gallagher.

And yet, Kennedy is a different name from both. It's clear (from your quote) that the woman's married name was Kennedy. Why call her Mrs. Keyler/Gallagher, then?

No, You might think she would have, but she had no reason to. If you have ever been in a court you would know that the witness does not speak until spoken to. And, is there to respond to questions, not give an ad-lib narrative of what they did and why.

I'm not talking solely about the inquest. Lewis spoke to the police as well. Why not tell them what they needed to know? And did the police just skip over this Mrs. Kennedy when trying to find witnesses? It's not like she lived very far if she lived right across from Kelly's room.

Where do we read that Lewis saw this man in the court?

In her inquest testimony, Lewis says:

When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court.

You'll note that she doesn't specify the couple turned into the court and then she did and by that time they were gone. Instead, she says she saw the loiterer when she turned into the court. She then places the man and the woman in relation to the loiterer and/or herself: they're ahead. Since she saw the loiterer when she turned into the court, this presumably means they were walking ahead of her in the court.

The sequence of events that you suggest is: Lewis sees a man and a woman walking ahead -> they turn into the court -> she turns into the court -> she sees the loiterer when she does this -> she doesn't see the couple in the court. That's not the order in which she presents her story and I can't see anything that indicates that we should read it out of order.

Hi All,

How could Mrs. Kennedy have seen "the deceased" outside the Britannia at 3.00 am when, according to GH "the deceased" had been in Room 13 with Mister Astrakhan since around 2.15 am?

Alternatively, how can GH's story be true when, according to Mrs Kennedy, "the deceased" was outside The Britannia at 3.00 am?

Regards,

Simon

I assume that either one of them was lying, mistaken, or incorrectly quoted along the line. This isn't out of the realm of possibility for me, since Hutchinson's and Kennedy's statements bring up questions on their own.

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...