Kennedy and Lewis

[Sunny Delight]

OK, so we both accept Hutchinson, and his story.
Regarding the "three minutes", it does appear he did not wear a watch (he referenced the Whitechapel Church down on Whitechapel Road for the time), so my view is that he said three minutes as an estimate. He probably said "two or three minutes", and Badham wrote down "three minutes". We shouldn't use that to limit any theory because he did not reference a watch, so it was guesswork. In actual fact is could have even been a bit longer.

He also doesn't seem to recall the clock chiming 2:00am, or 2:15, I think the Spitalfields church clock did chime on the quarter-hour. So, we must be somewhat flexible when trying to reconstruct a time for his movements. He does claim it was "about 2:00 am" as he passed Thrawl St. and he claimed he heard the same clock chime "3:00 am" as he left. So practically everything he tells us occurred within that one hour.



He had already heard how one witness (Maxwell) was quite certain Kelly was still alive about 9:00 am on Friday, he obviously dismissed her story.
Likely, because he was well aware the medical team had already determined Kelly's death to have taken place between 2-3:00 am Friday morning (as reported in Lloyds Weekly on Sunday).
It looks to me that because of the coroner's involvement in the investigation over the weekend, he had already made up his mind.
Therefore, in his view, anyone claiming to have seen Kelly after 3:00am was simply wrong.
On the other hand, the inquest was supposed to have a second sitting, Kennedy may have been expected to give her evidence then.



Quite right, the perception has been exaggerated. We have learned that there were plenty of reasonably wealthy shop owners, tailors, cabinet makers, etc. in the vicinity. However, the fact Bowyer used both "afternoon" then "night" (evening) on two separate occasions to relate the same story may only be peculiar to our eyes, but being 'peculiar' doesn't make him a liar.



Thankyou for the clarification.
And with respect to Hutchinson seeing Astrachan on Sunday morning, this may be the reason he spoke to the constable, as he told the press.
What we now know from police procedure is that a constable assigned to market duty is a Fixed-point assignment, meaning he cannot leave his duty.
So even if Hutchinson saw Astrachan, then ran to the policeman on duty, the constable cannot leave, and Hutchinson may not want to risk loosing his job, him being out of regular work, to run off to the police. He may not have been 100% sure it was Astrachan afterall.



I think it all ended with Kelly, but for what reason I am not committed, but this type of killer doesn't normally just stop for no reason.

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.

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.

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.

I think the Bethnal Green character is interesting and it would be typical in such a case that the murderer was in plain sight all along. This guy however seemed to choose women in pairs if the Press report of him doing it again on 14th November is anything to go by. He also seemed to be out almost nightly doing this. Wednesday 7th November, Friday 9th November and then an account of his arrest on Wednesday 14th November in the paper for an event a day or two before. Everytime attempting to convince women in pairs to go with him. A strange character for sure but it seems to me a red herring.

[Wickerman]

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.

OK, so we both accept Hutchinson, and his story.
Regarding the "three minutes", it does appear he did not wear a watch (he referenced the Whitechapel Church down on Whitechapel Road for the time), so my view is that he said three minutes as an estimate. He probably said "two or three minutes", and Badham wrote down "three minutes". We shouldn't use that to limit any theory because he did not reference a watch, so it was guesswork. In actual fact is could have even been a bit longer.

He also doesn't seem to recall the clock chiming 2:00am, or 2:15, I think the Spitalfields church clock did chime on the quarter-hour. So, we must be somewhat flexible when trying to reconstruct a time for his movements. He does claim it was "about 2:00 am" as he passed Thrawl St. and he claimed he heard the same clock chime "3:00 am" as he left. So practically everything he tells us occurred within that one hour.

Why would the Coroner not be concerned with a woman claiming she saw Kelly with a man at 3am?

He had already heard how one witness (Maxwell) was quite certain Kelly was still alive about 9:00 am on Friday, he obviously dismissed her story.
Likely, because he was well aware the medical team had already determined Kelly's death to have taken place between 2-3:00 am Friday morning (as reported in Lloyds Weekly on Sunday).
It looks to me that because of the coroner's involvement in the investigation over the weekend, he had already made up his mind.
Therefore, in his view, anyone claiming to have seen Kelly after 3:00am was simply wrong.
On the other hand, the inquest was supposed to have a second sitting, Kennedy may have been expected to give her evidence then.

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.

Quite right, the perception has been exaggerated. We have learned that there were plenty of reasonably wealthy shop owners, tailors, cabinet makers, etc. in the vicinity. However, the fact Bowyer used both "afternoon" then "night" (evening) on two separate occasions to relate the same story may only be peculiar to our eyes, but being 'peculiar' doesn't make him a liar.

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.

Thankyou for the clarification.
And with respect to Hutchinson seeing Astrachan on Sunday morning, this may be the reason he spoke to the constable, as he told the press.
What we now know from police procedure is that a constable assigned to market duty is a Fixed-point assignment, meaning he cannot leave his duty.
So even if Hutchinson saw Astrachan, then ran to the policeman on duty, the constable cannot leave, and Hutchinson may not want to risk loosing his job, him being out of regular work, to run off to the police. He may not have been 100% sure it was Astrachan afterall.

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.

I think it all ended with Kelly, but for what reason I am not committed, but this type of killer doesn't normally just stop for no reason.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

[GUT]

Was Sarah related to Maurice?? Do we know?

[Scott Nelson]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

[DJA]

[DJA]

[MrBarnett]

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

[Sunny Delight]

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?

[MrBarnett]

She didn't.

I believe you’re right.

[DJA]

She didn't.