Kennedy and Lewis

[Wickerman]

I stretch a point Jon,that needs stretching.Not all people today believe everything written by newspapers in 1888 were true.

Macdonald believed what he read, otherwise he wouldn't have invited Maxwell to give testimony.
The public believed what they read, they had no alternate source.

Sunny's suspicions can also be taken seriously.My belief is that Lewis could not have seen the same couple that Hutchinson followed.The time difference doesn't allow it.

We do not know what the time difference was.

Apart from Lewis specifically saying she was AT No.2 Millers Court AT 2:30, and Hutchinson saying he met up with Kelly "about 2:00 am", and leaving the scene "at 3:00 am".
There is nothing time-wise that we know.
So no, you do not know what the time difference was.

[harry]

I stretch a point Jon,that needs stretching.Not all people today believe everything written by newspapers in 1888 were true.
Sunny's suspicions can also be taken seriously.My belief is that Lewis could not have seen the same couple that Hutchinson followed.The time difference doesn't allow it.

[Wickerman]

Interesting. How can it be that the same paper reports two different stories from the same woman? This case is so confusing.

Yes, this does occur throughout the murders.
Agencies like Press Association, Central News, Telegraph, etc. often interviewed a witness and sold their stories to the local press over the wire. This is why we read so many similar worded accounts in different newspapers.

Local papers also bought agency stories and edited them, changing the occasional sentence or paragraph, sometimes making them much shorter. It can be an advantage to look further afield for a northern newspaper which often provided a more complete version of an agency story, whereas London papers often edit them down.

I just noticed the Daily News, 12 Nov. repeated much the same as the Evening News had on the 10th, specifically that one of the women was the deceased.
After writing about the pilot coat found in Kelly's room, the sentence continues:

"....Even were this not so, the coat would not tally with the description of the man in whose company the unfortunate woman Kelly was last seen - a well dressed man with a long overcoat over an ordinary coat."

The Daily News may have merely copied and reworded what the Evening News had published, but the article does mention that Kennedy had spoken to police.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, look further down, under the sub-heading The Police Non Plussed, it's the 2nd paragraph.

[Sunny Delight]

Well, thankyou for explaining yourself.

I see the problem, you didn't provide a date for the Evening News article, but I suspect it was the 10th Nov. edition. It is quite a long article, and indeed it does begin as you quote. The journalist was simply making the point that Kennedy saw the deceased talking to a man. He did not say whether anyone else was present, you're assuming there was only two but in actual fact the article goes on to describe three people, two women & one man. So there is no error, you just didn't read to the end.

In the same article, below the sub-heading The Man with the Black Bag, you will find a paragraph that begins with:

"A representative of the Press Association....", this is where you will find the number of people she saw outside the Britannia.

"She noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia public house."

Therefore, her story is consistent, no reason for Abberline to change his mind.

You are trying very hard to ignore what is plainly a reasonable argument

Interesting. How can it be that the same paper reports two different stories from the same woman? This case is so confusing.

[Wickerman]

She did not appear at the Inquest. Your reasoning for this is that she was maybe meant to give evidence on the second day but the Inquest was cut short or she told the same story as Lewis so why waste time hearing it. Yet we have a news report where she explicitly states she saw Mary Kelly with a man a short distance from her home at 3am or 3:30am in the morning. A man who had accosted her and her friend or sister a few nights previously and was acting suspiciously.

What I am saying is that in at least four news reports that I have seen Kennedy states she saw two women with a man outside the Britannia. In the Evening News this is changed to the deceased and a man.......

Well, thankyou for explaining yourself.

I see the problem, you didn't provide a date for the Evening News article, but I suspect it was the 10th Nov. edition. It is quite a long article, and indeed it does begin as you quote. The journalist was simply making the point that Kennedy saw the deceased talking to a man. He did not say whether anyone else was present, you're assuming there was only two but in actual fact the article goes on to describe three people, two women & one man. So there is no error, you just didn't read to the end.

In the same article, below the sub-heading The Man with the Black Bag, you will find a paragraph that begins with:

"A representative of the Press Association....", this is where you will find the number of people she saw outside the Britannia.

"She noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia public house."

Therefore, her story is consistent, no reason for Abberline to change his mind.

You are trying very hard to ignore what is plainly a reasonable argument

[Wickerman]

But Jon,you are assuming Hutchinson believed what the press printed.Maybe he didn't believe.He gave no sign during his interviews of such a belief.

Harry, this was a different time. The only access to what was going on anywhere in the world were the newspapers.
If the public wanted to know what was said in the House of Commons, they read the papers. Or who won the football game, or which horse won the Derby, or what was on at the theatre, or the latest thinking on the murders, they read a newspaper.
Why?, because they believed what they read.

Now, I know you like to stretch a point whenever you can, that I can't possibly "know" what Hutchinson was thinking, yes that's true. Though given that he was just one member of a general public who believed what they read in the press (why else did newspaper sales rocket! in this period?), then it's a very reasonable assumption to make.
There is certainly no indication he had different thoughts about the murder, than what was in the press.

[harry]

But Jon,you are assuming Hutchinson believed what the press printed.Maybe he didn't believe.He gave no sign during his interviews of such a belief.

[Sunny Delight]

Apart from your willingness to guess what Abberline was thinking, what evidence is there to suggest this is what happened?

Remember, "theories" are supposed to come from the known evidence, as there is no evidence of what Abberline was thinking, then all you have is speculation.
Against all logic, you have decided to suggest Abberline found her unreliable, yet all you have provided is clear and uncontradicted accounts from a witness.

In other words, after providing four positive accounts, how can you arrive at a negative conclusion?

She did not appear at the Inquest. Your reasoning for this is that she was maybe meant to give evidence on the second day but the Inquest was cut short or she told the same story as Lewis so why waste time hearing it. Yet we have a news report where she explicitly states she saw Mary Kelly with a man a short distance from her home at 3am or 3:30am in the morning. A man who had accosted her and her friend or sister a few nights previously and was acting suspiciously.

What I am saying is that in at least four news reports that I have seen Kennedy states she saw two women with a man outside the Britannia. In the Evening News this is changed to the deceased and a man. So I am saying that Abberline interviewed her according to the news report but she doesn't appear at the Inquest and George Hutchinson's sighting of A.K man is given precedence. Therefore Kennedy's evidence of seeing the deceased was not deemed reliable. She had seen two women with a man at the Britannia but couldn't identify who they were. You are choosing to add 2+2 and get 5 as Kelly we know was not the only woman soliciting that night in that area.

[Wickerman]

..... He interviews Kennedy but finds her unreliable and therefore her evidence is dismissed before Mondays inquest.

Apart from your willingness to guess what Abberline was thinking, what evidence is there to suggest this is what happened?

Remember, "theories" are supposed to come from the known evidence, as there is no evidence of what Abberline was thinking, then all you have is speculation.
Against all logic, you have decided to suggest Abberline found her unreliable, yet all you have provided is clear and uncontradicted accounts from a witness.

In other words, after providing four positive accounts, how can you arrive at a negative conclusion?

[Wickerman]

How do we know that Hutchinson believed she had been murdered between 8-30 and nine o'clock,Jon.Did he say that?

Because Harry, there only was one source for her estimated time of death, and that was the press.

[DJA]

Nope.

[harry]

How do we know that Hutchinson believed she had been murdered between 8-30 and nine o'clock,Jon.Did he say that?

[Sunny Delight]

Mrs. Kennedy to the Telegraph:

"About three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house, which is situate immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a woman poorly clad, without any headgear."

Mrs. Kennedy to the Star:

"She states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to her parent's house, which is situate immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear."

Mrs. Kennedy to the Evening News:

"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."

We also have this:

"Detective-Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy, who states that about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parent's house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room."

This says to be that Abberline heard of this story being circulated to pressman and immediately recognised it as hugely significant information. He interviews Kennedy but finds her unreliable and therefore her evidence is dismissed before Mondays inquest.

[Wickerman]

I still can't see how Mrs. Kennedy would not have been called. Obviously the Coroner conducted things very swiftly but Mrs. Kennedy was a crucial witness- if he had decided to condense things on the Monday her witness statement would be of the utmost importance. You must accept that? She may have been sick or unable to attend for another reason but if not then not being called is inexplicable unless the Police had decided she was unreliable.

There is a brief account in the Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov. which seems to refer to Mrs Kennedy.
"Another tale of a neighbour will also be told to the coroner, who will no doubt closely inquire into its veracity. A woman, whose parents live in Miller's-court, in the house opposite the room where the tragedy took place, declares that at three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way home, and she noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia Public-house."

Based on the above it would seem Kennedy was expected to give evidence at some point in the inquiry, however, directly following the evidence given by Dr. Phillips, we read this:
"The jury had no questions to ask at this stage, and it was understood that more detailed evidence of the medical examination would be given at a future hearing".

So it is clear there would at least be a second sitting of the inquiry, and here we likely would have heard the testimony of Mrs Kennedy.

Hutchinson saw Kelly around 2am. Their encounter was brief- A.K man approaches Kelly almost immediately after she spoke with Hutchinson. He describes them speaking briefly and then walking towards Miller's Court. They stood there for about 3 minutes- that could have been between say 2-5 minutes as telling the length of time without a watch is difficult so a large degree in regards margin of error. Hutchinson has to be in situe at the latest by 2:15am. Now what confused me about Lewis statement is she knew it was 2:30am because she had passed Spitalfields Clock and fixed the time by it. Indeed that is not inconsistent with her telling the Inquest she was at Keyler's at 2:30am. She would likely have been walking quite quickly one would imagine being a lone woman at the height of the Ripper scare. It would have taken her a couple of minutes at most from Spitalfields to Miller's Court.

Right, but lets look at how Hutchinson made a similar remark. This is what he told the press.

"About 2 am..... I was coming by Thrawl Street,.....I am able to fix the time, as I came by Whitechapel Church."

So, was the time on the Whitechapel Church clock "about 2:00", or was it something else?
In this case we know it was something else.

I am saying this is the same scenario we have with Sarah Lewis.
Hutchinson actually filled in the true time he passed the clock (I edited it out), but Lewis didn't, that is the difference.
Hutchinson actually said:

About 2 am...... I was coming by Thrawl Street,.....I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church.

Sarah Lewis said:
"I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning she lives at No 2 in the Court on the left on the first floor I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it".............

If Lewis had just completed her statement with the actual time she saw as she passed (like Hutchinson did), we would not be having this exchange.

It cannot be 2:30 as she passed Spitalfields clock, AND also be 2:30 when she is inside No.2 Millers Court, you must admit that much?

There is a difference in time, I don't know what it was, but it was not the same.

Yes I have seen press reports also of fixed duty Police not leaving their station even in an emergency so Hutchinson relaying the info to such a Policeman would likely have led to little if any action. What it does show however is that Hutchinson was grappling with what he saw all weekend and eventually confided in a friend at the Lodging House who advised him to go to the Police. Which he then did. The fact he thought he saw A.K man again and told the papers this whilst also furnishing them and the Police with a very detailed description to my mind must have made A.K man extremely anxious. It would be the equivalent of a strikingly similar photo fit being released of you nowadays a few days after the crime. It had to have set alarm bells off and as I say the killer must have been spoken to at some stage during house to house enquiries.

Also, let us not forget all the papers from Friday night, and all day Saturday, were telling the public (and therefore, Hutchinson) that Kelly had been seen alive after 8:30 Friday morning. This is a demonstrable fact, we only have to go through the papers to establish this.
The true time of death was only established in the Sunday press, and only in one newspaper (that I am aware of), so it may have come as a bit of a shock to Hutchinson to suddenly realize, sometime on Sunday, that the man he saw Kelly with on Friday 'could' have been her killer.
Some theorists have tried to criticize Hutchinson for not coming forward immediately, but this is an error, he believed what everyone else believed, and that was that she had been murdered sometime around 8:30-9:00 Friday morning, so he had nothing of value to tell police.