When was the estimation of when Mary took her last meal of fish and potatoes?

[Ben]

The story attributed to Mrs Kennedy is a thorn in the side of some theorists who choose to readily dismiss anything that does not fit with their beliefs.

For "some theorists" read most people.

Most authors and most students of the case either treat Kennedy as a pseudonym of Sarah Lewis, or opt for the explanation I've outlined.

I guess most people must have unusual "beliefs" and Kennedy-shaped "thorns" in their sides, then...

[Ben]

Hi Pack,

The account of events in Dorset Street are completely different to Lewis' as opposed to the bethnal green occurance...it's still possible they were sisters

The problem with this is that it would require the exceptionally unlikely coincidence of both sisters deciding, independently, to leave their respective homes in the small hours of the morning and arrive at #2 Miller's Court within half an hour of each other (that would have made four in a room the same size as Kelly's). It would mean neither slept well, and both were disturbed by the cry of "murder", and yet when it came to the inquest - where only one of them appeared; the one who didn't profess to know Kelly or see her at 3.00am (as Kennedy claimed she did) - no mention was made of this "sister" who had a bizarrely similar set of experiences.

This is a non-starter, in my view.

There is an alternative explanation that Lewis and Kennedy were one and the same, which perhaps has some merit, but it doesn't dovetail with the facts anything like as well as the one I expounded in the previous post.

All the best,
Ben

[curious4]

Thank you Wickerman and GUT. But I suspect the only language of handerchiefs in the East End consisted of waving a hanky out of a window while calling out "Hello sailor!"

Best regards
C4

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben
The account of events in Dorset Street are completely different to Lewis' as opposed to the bethnal green occurance...it's still possible they were sisters.
Kennedy first appeared in the press on the 10th ,not sure when Lewis' first appearance is and the times on the 12th states that she had been interviewed by Abberline
So i'm inclined to hang onto her account as a possibility for now

And rightly so, to date we know of nothing to contest the story given by Mrs Kennedy.
The story attributed to Mrs Kennedy is a thorn in the side of some theorists who choose to readily dismiss anything that does not fit with their beliefs.

[packers stem]

Ah, but I thought I made clear that I wasn't ruling her out for that reason "alone", Pack. Her non-appearance at the inquest is one reason; the suspicious degree of similarity with Sarah Lewis's account is another (Schwartz's isn't suspiciously similar to anyone else's, so no "Chinese whispering" applies there). The most important reason, however, is that it was observed by a reporter that certain woman were parrotting an existing account involving a cry of "murder", and since there were only two such accounts - Lewis's and Prater's - it follows that the reporter must have been referencing one of these, but which one? Well, the one with a near-identical "version" to it, which appeared in the newspapers under a different woman's name - Sarah Lewis's.

This is the only explanation that fits the facts (and the one supported by Philip Sugden to boot) and I'm often surprised to see the obvious resisted so staunchly in some quarters. Very few non-fiction ripper books seek to revive "Mrs. Kennedy" as a genuine witness, and for good reason.

But meanwhile, back on topic we must reluctantly go - last meal, anyone?

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben
The account of events in Dorset Street are completely different to Lewis' as opposed to the bethnal green occurance...it's still possible they were sisters.
Kennedy first appeared in the press on the 10th ,not sure when Lewis' first appearance is and the times on the 12th states that she had been interviewed by Abberline
So i'm inclined to hang onto her account as a possibility for now

[Ben]

We're just extremely lucky that we have an official interview with schwartz....the vast majority of official documents have disappeared so for that reason alone it would be wrong to rule out Kennedy

Ah, but I thought I made clear that I wasn't ruling her out for that reason "alone", Pack. Her non-appearance at the inquest is one reason; the suspicious degree of similarity with Sarah Lewis's account is another (Schwartz's isn't suspiciously similar to anyone else's, so no "Chinese whispering" applies there). The most important reason, however, is that it was observed by a reporter that certain woman were parrotting an existing account involving a cry of "murder", and since there were only two such accounts - Lewis's and Prater's - it follows that the reporter must have been referencing one of these, but which one? Well, the one with a near-identical "version" to it, which appeared in the newspapers under a different woman's name - Sarah Lewis's.

This is the only explanation that fits the facts (and the one supported by Philip Sugden to boot) and I'm often surprised to see the obvious resisted so staunchly in some quarters. Very few non-fiction ripper books seek to revive "Mrs. Kennedy" as a genuine witness, and for good reason.

But meanwhile, back on topic we must reluctantly go - last meal, anyone?

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Thanks Ben
That's what I thought.

Hi Abby,

I often wonder which long-discredited witness is going to be revived next. Hint: if there's no well-dressed man or black bag involved, it isn't looking promising!

[Wickerman]

Hi Packers Stem.
There is absolutely nothing in the Star article concerning Kennedy's story being repeated by anyone.
As we read in the short paragraph entitled, A Hundred Highly Circumstantial Stories, it is Elizabeth Prater who was the source, being the woman who lived in the Court.

The Star didn't even know of Sarah Lewis's story. In so far as the Star was concerned the story told by Mrs Kennedy originated with her.
This story was identifiably quite separate from the story told by Prater which was 'parroted' by others.

Ben has been labouring to sell his interpretation of the Star reports for years now, which simply does not work when you read it yourself.

[GUT]

Talk Like a Pirate Day was yesterday,in Australia.

I thought my sister said it was today

[DJA]

Thanks good stuff.

I'm young enough, or is it old enough, to remember when girls wore a corsair on certain sides and if a guy had an earing it mattered what ear and all sorts of other junk that was supposed to show you were available.

Talk Like a Pirate Day was yesterday,in Australia.

[packers stem]

Hi Abby and Simon,

Apologies for the late reply.

Mrs. Kennedy was almost certainly not a genuine witness, but rather one of the "half dozen" women mentioned by a Star journalist, who tried to pass off Sarah Lewis's genuine evidence as their own - presumably after hearing it first or second hand in one of the lodging houses in the locality, where gossip ran rampant. Fortunately, her antics were cottoned onto fairly early, as she would otherwise have appeared at the inquest had she been treated as genuine; her alleged sighting of Kelly at 3.00am would have made her the most valuable witness if the claim was true. But alas, she was a mere "Chinese Whisperer" of Lewis's genuine account.

Hope this helps,
Ben

Hi Ben
Unfortunately that reasoning would make Israel schwartz a Chinese whisper also as only the star caught up with him and he wasnt called to the inquest...
We're just extremely lucky that we have an official interview with schwartz....the vast majority of official documents have disappeared so for that reason alone it would be wrong to rule out Kennedy

[GUT]

Sorry about this, completely off-thread but I do get over-excited when I find something I didn't know. (And which everyone else probably did).

C4

Thanks good stuff.

I'm young enough, or is it old enough, to remember when girls wore a corsair on certain sides and if a guy had an earing it mattered what ear and all sorts of other junk that was supposed to show you were available.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby and Simon,

Apologies for the late reply.

Mrs. Kennedy was almost certainly not a genuine witness, but rather one of the "half dozen" women mentioned by a Star journalist, who tried to pass off Sarah Lewis's genuine evidence as their own - presumably after hearing it first or second hand in one of the lodging houses in the locality, where gossip ran rampant. Fortunately, her antics were cottoned onto fairly early, as she would otherwise have appeared at the inquest had she been treated as genuine; her alleged sighting of Kelly at 3.00am would have made her the most valuable witness if the claim was true. But alas, she was a mere "Chinese Whisperer" of Lewis's genuine account.

Hope this helps,
Ben

Thanks Ben
That's what I thought. Another phantom for losers trying to push there pathetic theories .,.,.,!,,,,!

[Wickerman]

Sorry about this, completely off-thread but I do get over-excited when I find something I didn't know. (And which everyone else probably did).

C4

Not at all, that link was quite interesting and entertaining.

[curious4]

Hello Wickerman

There were apparently a whole range of messages which could be sent with a handkerchief - holding it to the eyes, for example meant "you have made me cry". Not just fans and flowers.

"As we know, the Victorians had rather strict ideas of etiquette, particularly where the behaviour of men and women was concerned, and in polite society, any outward signs of flirtation were simply not allowed. However, much could be accomplished with the discreet manipulation of a fan or handkerchief. The Royal Victorian Society has published a list of the “language of the handkerchief,” which, if nothing else, makes for very amusing reading. Apparently, if a young woman twisted her handkerchief in her left hand, it meant “Go away” and the same gesture with her right hand meant “I’m thinking of you.” If she held her handkerchief to her left cheek, she was saying “Yes” and to her right cheek, “No.” One can only imagine the mixed messages that were possible or if, in fact, anyone actually understood what was being said."

http://www.orilliapacket.com/2013/03/01/the-language-of-handkerchiefs

Best wishes
C4

Sorry about this, completely off-thread but I do get over-excited when I find something I didn't know. (And which everyone else probably did).

C4