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

[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

[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.

[GUT]

Talk Like a Pirate Day was yesterday,in Australia.

I thought my sister said it was today

[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.

[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!

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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...

[Abby Normal]

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!

HAHA. you got that right!

[Wickerman]

...
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).

And they couldn't have arranged to meet there I suppose.

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.

Do you really think anyone of that class slept well in those days?
They slept on the floor, or in chairs, or lounged across a rope.
Lewis & Kennedy were both visitors, the Keylors/Gallaghers/Kelleghers whatever they called themselves likely had the only bed, they were the legitimate tenants.

Also, when giving testimony to a court, regardless whether the witness was alone or in company they are expected to answer in the singular "I" not "we".

And, as for what is not written in the court records, I have explained that to you time and time again. Interestingly, I had cause to raise that same point with the Senior Information Officer at the London Metropolitan Archives. I pointed out to him that the court records for the Barnet case of Joseph Isaacs was sorely depleted and testimony that does exist is sparse. We get more information from the press account, to which he replied:

(quote)
"With regards to the general lack of paperwork as compared to what is actually reported in the newspapers this is actually something we see quite often. Newspaper accounts and other publications which in essence transcribed what was said in court, are always likely to provide more background detail than the pure paperwork alone. As in modern trials, more is said in court than is actually written down in statements and of course the publications wanted to make it as interesting as possible for their readers."

Sound familiar?, isn't that what I have been trying to impress on you all these years when discussing what is attributed to Sarah Lewis at court as opposed to what we read in the press?

Professional archivists know this, experienced researchers know this, I know this, but you have continued to dismiss the fact that court records are not complete - its just a plain but deplorable fact Ben, like it or not.
Press accounts of inquest proceedings are invaluable and cannot be so easily dismissed.

[Ben]

No, Jon, that was not your cue to start another done-to-death Kennedy argument. But since you insist:

“And they couldn't have arranged to meet there I suppose”

I don’t really see how, unless Sarah sent a text message to Kennedy saying: “Hey sis, I’ve had it up to here with that husband of mine. I’m ditching him and heading over to mum and dad’s tiny hovel in Miller’s Court. Fancy walking over there in the cold and rain and joining me? It's only 2.00am. I’ll take the chair, and you can just curl up in a foetal ball on the table. L8rs!”

“Do you really think anyone of that class slept well in those days?
They slept on the floor, or in chairs, or lounged across a rope.”

When they had no other option they did, yes.

That obviously didn’t apply in this case. Both women would have chosen to abandon relative comfort in favour of a cold, wet, very dangerous walk in the small hours to “sleep” in a tiny room the same size as #13. One might assume that the nature of Lewis’s argument with her husband was sufficient to propel her into considering such a poor option, but we have no evidence that Kennedy’s virtually identical experience was prompted by such calamity.

“Lewis & Kennedy were both visitors, the Keylors/Gallaghers/Kelleghers whatever they called themselves”

Keyler, according to Lewis’s signed police statement.

“Gallagher” comes from the discredited 10th November press account attributed to “Mrs. Kennedy”,

“Kellegher” comes from…??

“Also, when giving testimony to a court, regardless whether the witness was alone or in company they are expected to answer in the singular "I" not "we".”

Like for instance:

“I went to Miller’s Court after 2:00am, and I heard a cry of murder later on, and my sister heard it too”.

“Sound familiar?, isn't that what I have been trying to impress on you all these years when discussing what is attributed to Sarah Lewis at court as opposed to what we read in the press?”

No, it doesn't "sound familiar", and what is all this apropos of, Jon? We’re talking about “Mrs. Kennedy” who was never “at court” for the reasons I’ve already provided. I have no problem with anything the press attributed to Sarah Lewis regarding her appearance at the inquest, with the obvious exception of one particular paper whose claim regarding the movements of her "couple" contradicted all other press reports AND the original police statement. But that’s a different debate altogether, and one that you’re not about to revive.

So with reference to the current discussion concerning Kennedy, where have I disputed that the “court records are not complete”, and in what respect does the archivist’s observations challenge or negate my own on this particular topic?

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

When they had no other option they did, yes.

That obviously didn’t apply in this case. Both women would have chosen to abandon relative comfort in favour of a cold, wet, very dangerous walk in the small hours to “sleep” in a tiny room the same size as #13.

Care to describe to me what this "relative comfort" was Ben, seeing as you are so well informed.

One might assume that the nature of Lewis’s argument with her husband was sufficient to propel her into considering such a poor option, but we have no evidence that Kennedy’s virtually identical experience was prompted by such calamity.

By "experience" you mean they both passed a man at the Britannia, but at difference times.

Sarah appears to have understood the Keylor's to have been a refuge, if the reason she gave for leaving home was true. By their actions the previous Wednesday night it appears to me Lewis & Kennedy were prostitutes, perhaps part time but not the helpless and vulnerable females out of their depth on cool and dangerous autumn nights that you envisage.

Like for instance:

“I went to Miller’s Court after 2:00am, and I heard a cry of murder later on, and my sister heard it too”.

The court only wants to hear what she saw and what she heard. If the court chooses to know what others saw & heard they will be called to testify.

I have no problem with anything the press attributed to Sarah Lewis regarding her appearance at the inquest, with the obvious exception of one particular paper whose claim regarding the movements of her "couple" contradicted all other press reports AND the original police statement. But that’s a different debate altogether, and one that you’re not about to revive.

One particular paper which by pure coincidence just happens to confirm Hutchinson's story, and does not contradict anything written anywhere.

Press coverage of inquest testimony is viewed as historical record. Like it or not, and I know you don't, you cannot change that fact.