Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kennedy and Lewis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
    Sarah Lewis did not say she was at the Keyler's at half 2. Her exact words were as follows:

    "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. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock."

    I went to her house at half 2, not I was at or I was in. She also fixed the time by the Spitalfields Clock meaning she looked at it as she passed.
    Why did you not quote from the court record?

    I'll do it for you, and I will emphasize the important passage:

    Sarah Lewis having been sworn deposed as follows:
    I live at 24 Great Powell Street Spitalfields,
    I am a laundress,
    I knew Mrs Keyler in Millers Court.
    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.


    A number of press copies do phrase it differently, but then they were not being asked to make the distinction that 'you' have created.
    'You' are choosing to dismiss an incident where two witness accounts mutually support each other, simply because 'you' are unable to account for roughly 15 minutes that 'you' claim must separate what they both saw, even if what they saw was identical.
    Do you grasp how ridiculous that sounds?

    Despite your protests, we do not know the precise time Hutchinson took up his vigil.
    Also, we do not know the precise time Lewis arrived at Millers court.



    In regards Kelly and Lewis being similar we have the following co-orboration:

    - They both were going to a room in Miller's Court opposite Kelly's.

    - Both gave information about the Bethnal Green incident that suggests they were either both there or the same person is describing the same event using a different name for the press.

    - Both heard a cry of murder and both told how they were prevented from leaving the Court by Police the next day.
    You have not explained how any of those points can only be evidence of Kennedy & Lewis being the same person.
    It's kind of obvious two women experiencing the same incident will tell the same story.

    It is not obvious that the same woman would give two different names & two different addresses, and experience two different incidents on Friday morning.
    You failed my dear.

    I can see the logic in your argument that Mrs. Kennedy was possibly Sarah Lewis sister....
    Here we find another point of trivia. Specifically, that in the late 19th century it was more common for a girl to refer to her best friend as her sister.
    This as a term of endearment has fallen out of fashion in our modern world. Who knows, maybe Lewis & Kennedy grew up together, maybe sharing the same household?, we simply do not know. Yet, if you take the time to look in a 19th century dictionary, which lists words currently in use, you will find the 19th century meaning of "sister".

    "Close female friend"


    For me though it seems that the Evening News took some creative license with her story and embellished it to involve Kelly. The fact that she was not called to the Inquest must surely have alarm bells ringing.
    We don't know if Kennedy was expected to give evidence, the inquest was cut short, terminated on the first day.
    Are you suggesting the Evening News were attempting to frame the B.G.Botherer?, especially after this very newspaper had narrowly escaped being sued by John Pizer for libel?
    You are really stretching things here.

    She had seen Kelly with a man at the time of her death. She was a crucial witness. If it wasn't Lewis using a pseudonym then it was a Mrs Kennedy parroting a story she had heard.
    But this is another example of you inventing anything to support a flawed theory.

    - Afternoon was afternoon even in Victorian times. Some other Inquest testimony:
    So, you are saying the articles posted from 19th century newspapers are fake?
    Or, the people who published those articles didn't know what they were talking about?
    You know best of course, like many modern theorists, the actual people who lived through the time are all wrong?

    "I last saw her alive between half-past seven and a quarter to eight on Thursday night".


    "On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman, about eight o'clock, when a gentleman passed us.


    "From nine to half-past ten at night I was away seeing an English friend home, but I was in the club again till a quarter-past midnight."

    I could post much more. If Bowyer said afternoon he meant afternoon.
    It isn't clear what your point is.

    Did you read PC Robinson's testimony at the Eddowes inquest:

    "...At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased."

    We all know Eddowes was arrested while being drunk, impersonating a fire engine.

    Testimony by John Kelly.

    "I heard she had been locked up at Bishopsgate-street on Saturday afternoon."

    "Afternoon" ran from noon until midnight in the late 19th century, the fact people also use "evening" for the latter half of the afternoon is an established fact.
    You can argue, or you can learn.


    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      Why did you not quote from the court record?

      I'll do it for you, and I will emphasize the important passage:

      Sarah Lewis having been sworn deposed as follows:
      I live at 24 Great Powell Street Spitalfields,
      I am a laundress,
      I knew Mrs Keyler in Millers Court.
      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.


      A number of press copies do phrase it differently, but then they were not being asked to make the distinction that 'you' have created.
      'You' are choosing to dismiss an incident where two witness accounts mutually support each other, simply because 'you' are unable to account for roughly 15 minutes that 'you' claim must separate what they both saw, even if what they saw was identical.
      Do you grasp how ridiculous that sounds?

      Despite your protests, we do not know the precise time Hutchinson took up his vigil.
      Also, we do not know the precise time Lewis arrived at Millers court.





      You have not explained how any of those points can only be evidence of Kennedy & Lewis being the same person.
      It's kind of obvious two women experiencing the same incident will tell the same story.

      It is not obvious that the same woman would give two different names & two different addresses, and experience two different incidents on Friday morning.
      You failed my dear.



      Here we find another point of trivia. Specifically, that in the late 19th century it was more common for a girl to refer to her best friend as her sister.
      This as a term of endearment has fallen out of fashion in our modern world. Who knows, maybe Lewis & Kennedy grew up together, maybe sharing the same household?, we simply do not know. Yet, if you take the time to look in a 19th century dictionary, which lists words currently in use, you will find the 19th century meaning of "sister".

      "Close female friend"




      We don't know if Kennedy was expected to give evidence, the inquest was cut short, terminated on the first day.
      Are you suggesting the Evening News were attempting to frame the B.G.Botherer?, especially after this very newspaper had narrowly escaped being sued by John Pizer for libel?
      You are really stretching things here.



      But this is another example of you inventing anything to support a flawed theory.



      So, you are saying the articles posted from 19th century newspapers are fake?
      Or, the people who published those articles didn't know what they were talking about?
      You know best of course, like many modern theorists, the actual people who lived through the time are all wrong?



      It isn't clear what your point is.

      Did you read PC Robinson's testimony at the Eddowes inquest:

      "...At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased."

      We all know Eddowes was arrested while being drunk, impersonating a fire engine.

      Testimony by John Kelly.

      "I heard she had been locked up at Bishopsgate-street on Saturday afternoon."

      "Afternoon" ran from noon until midnight in the late 19th century, the fact people also use "evening" for the latter half of the afternoon is an established fact.
      You can argue, or you can learn.

      How exactly did Kate impersonate a fire engine?

      Comment


      • #63
        She didn't.
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by DJA View Post
          She didn't.
          I believe you’re right.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            Why did you not quote from the court record?

            I'll do it for you, and I will emphasize the important passage:

            Sarah Lewis having been sworn deposed as follows:
            I live at 24 Great Powell Street Spitalfields,
            I am a laundress,
            I knew Mrs Keyler in Millers Court.
            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.


            A number of press copies do phrase it differently, but then they were not being asked to make the distinction that 'you' have created.
            'You' are choosing to dismiss an incident where two witness accounts mutually support each other, simply because 'you' are unable to account for roughly 15 minutes that 'you' claim must separate what they both saw, even if what they saw was identical.
            Do you grasp how ridiculous that sounds?

            Despite your protests, we do not know the precise time Hutchinson took up his vigil.
            Also, we do not know the precise time Lewis arrived at Millers court.





            You have not explained how any of those points can only be evidence of Kennedy & Lewis being the same person.
            It's kind of obvious two women experiencing the same incident will tell the same story.

            It is not obvious that the same woman would give two different names & two different addresses, and experience two different incidents on Friday morning.
            You failed my dear.



            Here we find another point of trivia. Specifically, that in the late 19th century it was more common for a girl to refer to her best friend as her sister.
            This as a term of endearment has fallen out of fashion in our modern world. Who knows, maybe Lewis & Kennedy grew up together, maybe sharing the same household?, we simply do not know. Yet, if you take the time to look in a 19th century dictionary, which lists words currently in use, you will find the 19th century meaning of "sister".

            "Close female friend"




            We don't know if Kennedy was expected to give evidence, the inquest was cut short, terminated on the first day.
            Are you suggesting the Evening News were attempting to frame the B.G.Botherer?, especially after this very newspaper had narrowly escaped being sued by John Pizer for libel?
            You are really stretching things here.



            But this is another example of you inventing anything to support a flawed theory.



            So, you are saying the articles posted from 19th century newspapers are fake?
            Or, the people who published those articles didn't know what they were talking about?
            You know best of course, like many modern theorists, the actual people who lived through the time are all wrong?



            It isn't clear what your point is.

            Did you read PC Robinson's testimony at the Eddowes inquest:

            "...At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased."

            We all know Eddowes was arrested while being drunk, impersonating a fire engine.

            Testimony by John Kelly.

            "I heard she had been locked up at Bishopsgate-street on Saturday afternoon."

            "Afternoon" ran from noon until midnight in the late 19th century, the fact people also use "evening" for the latter half of the afternoon is an established fact.
            You can argue, or you can learn.

            I took the Lewis quote from this website and the transcription of the Inquest testimony under the Official Documentation section. There she is quoted as saying she went to the Keyler's at 2:30am and she fixed the time by looking at the Spitalfields Clock. Do you reject that?

            Do you grasp how ridiculous yours sounds? You are the one with the theory- not me. I don't have a theory, I only believe what Hutchinson said to be true and from all other evidence gathered he seems the most likely to have last seen Kelly alive. Your theory involves Bethnal Green botherer likely being Parcelman and probably Packer's guy as well. So you fit the evidence around your theory. Mrs. Kennedy was a key witness. She had seen Kelly with a man at 3am. The Police had a description of the man. She had crucial evidence. If she was genuine she should have been at the Inquest. Maybe she was sick? It's possible of course but she should have been a key witness. I don't believe the press were framing BGB and don't quite know how u gathered that?

            Sister would still have the same meaning today in certain societies. I believe it may now be referred to as 'sista'. Me I prefer to see the written word as it is written. If the witness says she was with her sister then the most obvious conclusion is that she was with her well.... sister.

            What time did Bowyer claim to have seen the strange man on Wednesday before the murder in Miller's Court?

            Comment


            • #66
              Where was Great Powell Street? Was it anywhere near a fire station? Perhaps that’s where Kate learned to mimic the fire engines.







              Comment


              • #67
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • #68
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	mitre-sq-jan1887.jpg
Views:	102
Size:	247.1 KB
ID:	788845
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Also just to add that the Echo reported on 14th November a man who had been arrested after suspicions were raised about him accosting women. He accosted two women and after conversing with them for some time attempted to convince them to accompany him down a small street adjoining the market. The women refused to go with the man who was then followed by a number of suspicious men and the Police alerted about him. Arrested he gave contradictory stories about his whereabouts on the night of Kelly's murder and refused to give an account of his actions with the two women lest his parents find out.

                    Sound familiar? Could this have been the Bethnal Green Botherer. Maybe.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      How exactly did Kate impersonate a fire engine?
                      Maybe someone should have asked Tom Cullen, Fire Engine's had bells in them days if I recall.
                      Come to think of it, when I was a kid Ice Cream vans also played music with bells and plenty of kids used to mimic that sound.
                      Last edited by Wickerman; 07-02-2022, 12:22 PM.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

                        I took the Lewis quote from this website and the transcription of the Inquest testimony under the Official Documentation section. There she is quoted as saying she went to the Keyler's at 2:30am and she fixed the time by looking at the Spitalfields Clock. Do you reject that?
                        A newspaper account is not an official document, that is an error by Casebook. The court record is what should have been posted there, but it may be protected by copywrite. I know it was when I bought my copy.
                        That aside, when you use press versions you must take examples from a wide range because they all offer different wording. We cannot always tell what is verbatim, paraphrase or summary. Even the court record is not always clear.

                        Do you grasp how ridiculous yours sounds? You are the one with the theory- not me. I don't have a theory,...
                        One of your claims was that you think Astrachan was the killer, which is why you cannot accept Mrs Kennedy as a separate person, or her sighting of Kelly after her liaison with Astrachan.
                        That, seems to be your theory, unless you would like to clarify?

                        ..I only believe what Hutchinson said to be true and from all other evidence gathered he seems the most likely to have last seen Kelly alive.
                        To that end then, we mostly agree. Though why you resist Lewis's sighting of the couple entering Millers Court as being the same as Hutchinson's story is bewildering. It just seems you have set a trap for yourself by insisting there had to be 15 minutes between what Hutchinson saw & what Lewis saw.

                        Your theory involves Bethnal Green botherer likely being Parcelman and probably Packer's guy as well. So you fit the evidence around your theory.
                        I already explained that they could be very different individuals, or did you miss that line?
                        There are reported similarities between the men that make a comparison worthy of consideration.

                        Mrs. Kennedy was a key witness. She had seen Kelly with a man at 3am. The Police had a description of the man. She had crucial evidence. If she was genuine she should have been at the Inquest.
                        The coroner was not concerned about the man outside the Britannia. It is clear (or should be), from the court record that the coroner was more concerned about who was seen loitering in Dorset St. close to the scene of the crime. This must be why Lewis was called, otherwise the women's stories were more or less the same. You will not get two witnesses telling the same story at an inquest, it is both a waste of time & money.

                        I don't believe the press were framing BGB and don't quite know how u gathered that?
                        Obviously, because you suggested the Evening News invented Kelly's presence on that corner at that time.

                        Sister would still have the same meaning today in certain societies. I believe it may now be referred to as 'sista'. Me I prefer to see the written word as it is written. If the witness says she was with her sister then the most obvious conclusion is that she was with her well.... sister.
                        To be clear, Lewis said she was with a friend, it was Kennedy who said she was with her sister.

                        It isn't what was written that is the issue, we both know what was written, it is what was meant.

                        What time did Bowyer claim to have seen the strange man on Wednesday before the murder in Miller's Court?
                        This is the press account.

                        Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.
                        Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.


                        Sadly, he doesn't give a time, but if it was between say, 9:00 - midnight, it may be that the 'Botherer' followed Kennedy back home after the "Wednesday evening" encounter that we are all familiar with, and perhaps, this is where the 'Botherer' first met up with Kelly?
                        It must be admitted though, Lewis & Kennedy both estimated the man's age as "about 40", whereas Bowyer's "Collar & Cuffs", and PC Smith's "Parcel-man" appear to be around 28. Packer's man is somewhere in between.

                        There is no point in trying to make an argument between what may have been meant by Bowyer's use of "Wednesday afternoon" at the inquest, and his statement of "Wednesday night" to the press, when it is clearly proven that both terms are used for the same portion of the day.

                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
                          Also just to add that the Echo reported on 14th November a man who had been arrested after suspicions were raised about him accosting women. He accosted two women and after conversing with them for some time attempted to convince them to accompany him down a small street adjoining the market. The women refused to go with the man who was then followed by a number of suspicious men and the Police alerted about him. Arrested he gave contradictory stories about his whereabouts on the night of Kelly's murder and refused to give an account of his actions with the two women lest his parents find out.

                          Sound familiar? Could this have been the Bethnal Green Botherer. Maybe.
                          Indeed, and this report has not gone unnoticed. It's just as always, we are short of names. Though there is no mention of a wife, and it appears the man still lived at home, so an age of 28? would fit the bill.
                          Maybe this arrest was sufficient to warn him off, now the police have a name & place of residence for a suspect?
                          It raises more questions, but yes we've considered this report previously.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Just to note here that coroner MacDonald conducted the Kelly Inquest in such haste and in an abbreviated manner, that much valuable testimony was never heard and valuable witnesses were never used.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Was Sarah related to Maurice?? Do we know?
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                A newspaper account is not an official document, that is an error by Casebook. The court record is what should have been posted there, but it may be protected by copywrite. I know it was when I bought my copy.
                                That aside, when you use press versions you must take examples from a wide range because they all offer different wording. We cannot always tell what is verbatim, paraphrase or summary. Even the court record is not always clear.



                                One of your claims was that you think Astrachan was the killer, which is why you cannot accept Mrs Kennedy as a separate person, or her sighting of Kelly after her liaison with Astrachan.
                                That, seems to be your theory, unless you would like to clarify?



                                To that end then, we mostly agree. Though why you resist Lewis's sighting of the couple entering Millers Court as being the same as Hutchinson's story is bewildering. It just seems you have set a trap for yourself by insisting there had to be 15 minutes between what Hutchinson saw & what Lewis saw.



                                I already explained that they could be very different individuals, or did you miss that line?
                                There are reported similarities between the men that make a comparison worthy of consideration.



                                The coroner was not concerned about the man outside the Britannia. It is clear (or should be), from the court record that the coroner was more concerned about who was seen loitering in Dorset St. close to the scene of the crime. This must be why Lewis was called, otherwise the women's stories were more or less the same. You will not get two witnesses telling the same story at an inquest, it is both a waste of time & money.


                                Obviously, because you suggested the Evening News invented Kelly's presence on that corner at that time.



                                To be clear, Lewis said she was with a friend, it was Kennedy who said she was with her sister.

                                It isn't what was written that is the issue, we both know what was written, it is what was meant.



                                This is the press account.

                                Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.
                                Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.


                                Sadly, he doesn't give a time, but if it was between say, 9:00 - midnight, it may be that the 'Botherer' followed Kennedy back home after the "Wednesday evening" encounter that we are all familiar with, and perhaps, this is where the 'Botherer' first met up with Kelly?
                                It must be admitted though, Lewis & Kennedy both estimated the man's age as "about 40", whereas Bowyer's "Collar & Cuffs", and PC Smith's "Parcel-man" appear to be around 28. Packer's man is somewhere in between.

                                There is no point in trying to make an argument between what may have been meant by Bowyer's use of "Wednesday afternoon" at the inquest, and his statement of "Wednesday night" to the press, when it is clearly proven that both terms are used for the same portion of the day.
                                I think we are in broad agreement on George Hutchinson. So that is a start. In regards Sarah Lewis if she said she was 'at the Keyler's at half 2 then that does help clarify. However there is still Hutchinson's three minutes to consider. Do you believe that Lewis entered Dorset Street as Hutchinson's three minute sighting was coming to an end? So then she sees Kelly and the man and she felt Kelly looked to be in drink. Then she continues walking and by the time she reaches the entrance to Miller's Court there is no one in it as they have gone into Kelly's room and she sees Hutchinson where he says he was? Have I got that right? It seems a good suggestion but one I need to sit down and examine before agreeing.

                                Why would the Coroner not be concerned with a woman claiming she saw Kelly with a man at 3am? Because Lewis said she had seen a hatless woman at 2:30am at the Britannia? That makes zero sense. Mrs. Kennedy told the Evening News she had seen Kelly and made a statement to that effect. It is not the same story as Lewis. Kennedy saw the murder victim. Hardly a waste of time calling her rather she should have been a star witness.

                                It would be peculiar to refer to a sighting as the afternoon and then term it night in another statement. Sure it seems sometimes that the terms were used this way and if they were interchangeable then fair enough. The fact we don't have a time on the press report is an issue however. What Bowyers statement does prove though is that smartly dressed men were not completely alien in the district. PC Smith the same describing a respectably dressed man. Sarah Lewis described a well dressed man. George Hutchinson a very respectable appearance. There is a perception Whitechapel had only the lowest in society living there. Very far from the case.

                                I don't really have a theory. I expect the Ripper was a local man, probably aged between 27-35 and in regular employment with lodgings of his own either with parents or by himself. That's it. In regards Hutchinson his is the last statement we have that was verified and he indeed was interrogated over it. So if he saw what he said he did to my mind he saw the Ripper. And a well dressed man would evade suspicion I should think for a myriad of reason notably it is human nature to exclude someone on a superficial level in regards appearance. The fact Hutchinson said he felt he had seen him at Petticoat market on the Sunday is something I think badly overlooked. If the Ripper read that in the paper he would have been very nervous indeed. It may have prompted him to go to ground particularly if during the house to house enquiries he was spoken to.

                                I find it significant the Ripper went to ground.after Mary Kelly's murder. It may be that the increased patrolling made him think twice. It may be that after murdering Mary Kelly he was satisfied in his warped desires for a few months. It may be that Hutchinson told the truth and had given an excellent description of him, also declaring he lived in the neighbourhood and he felt he had seen him again. It may be a mixture of all three but I do believe he re-emerged to murder Alice McKemzie less than a year later.
                                Last edited by Sunny Delight; 07-02-2022, 07:30 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X