Kennedy and Lewis

[Simon Wood]

The police investigating the Kelly murder took witness statements on 9th November 1888, which are held with the inquest papers’ at the London Metropolitan Archives. These are mainly in the hand of Abberline.

Mrs Kennedy's statement is not amongst their number.

All that exists of the 9th November statements are those of the nine witnesses who appeared at the inquest on Monday 12th November.

[Wickerman]

The statements filed with the inquest record are those chosen by the coroner to appear at the inquest. Chosen from a larger assembly of statements which would be retained in the police files which have not survived.
This is where you would find the statements by Kennedy, the tenants above Kelly, Catherine Pickell, and any other residents of Millers Court.

All that have survived are those chosen by the coroner.

[Simon Wood]

Hi, Jon,

Oh Boy! Why didn't I think of that?

I'm glad you have laid this particular mystery to rest.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Searching residences, taking statements from everyone in Millers Court, Dorset St. & connecting thoroughfares will amount to many hundreds if not well over a thousand statements taken over the weekend.
And all we have to show for this is nine statements held in the inquest records?

Inspector Abberline, Inspector Beck, Detective-sergeants, Thicke and White, together with other officers sent specially over from Scotland - yard, are now searching all the houses within a stone's throw of No. 25, Dorset-street. At every street corner excited groups of people are conversing about this, the latest East-end mystery.
Echo, 9 Nov.

During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200.
Times, 12 Nov.

[Trevor Marriott]

Searching residences, taking statements from everyone in Millers Court, Dorset St. & connecting thoroughfares will amount to many hundreds if not well over a thousand statements taken over the weekend.
And all we have to show for this is nine statements held in the inquest records?

Inspector Abberline, Inspector Beck, Detective-sergeants, Thicke and White, together with other officers sent specially over from Scotland - yard, are now searching all the houses within a stone's throw of No. 25, Dorset-street. At every street corner excited groups of people are conversing about this, the latest East-end mystery.
Echo, 9 Nov.

During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200.
Times, 12 Nov.

It might have been the case that in 1888 the police only took down written statements from those who could offer any relevant information to the case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Mrs Kennedy's statement is of the upmost importance least of all because it corroborates a lot of what Sarah Lewis said.
And since her statement was taken on the ninth the police would be fully aware of this very important witness, yet she was not called to the inquest we have to ask our selfs why? A woman selling a story she had heard second hand to a newspaper reporter only too willing to pay a shilling or even just for a hot cup of tea and a roll looking for a scoop.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mrs Kennedy's statement is of the upmost importance least of all because it corroborates a lot of what Sarah Lewis said.
And since her statement was taken on the ninth the police would be fully aware of this very important witness, yet she was not called to the inquest we have to ask our selfs why? A woman selling a story she had heard second hand to a newspaper reporter only too willing to pay a shilling or even just for a hot cup of tea and a roll looking for a scoop.

If she only corroborated evidence given by another, the police/coroner probably thought there was no point in calling her to say something another witness had already said previous.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

If she only corroborated evidence given by another, the police/coroner probably thought there was no point in calling her to say something another witness had already said previous.

But the "Kennedy" story contains detail missing from Lewis's account:

• Two women (not one) are seen outside the Britannia, only one of whom is talking to a man;
  
• A woman (possibly Kelly) exchanges words with Britannia-Man;
  
• Britannia-Man asks the woman "Are you coming?" (Lewis, by contrast, doesn't mention any specific utterances);
  
• The woman turns 'obstinately' away from the man;
  
• The Bethnal Green Botherer [BGB] reported by Kennedy is 5'7", contrasting with the "short" man seen by Lewis;
  
• Kennedy gives a more detailed description of BGB's appearance and clothing than Lewis does;
  
• Kennedy gives more details about BGB's behaviour (e.g. he appeared "agitated", he said "I only want one of you") than Lewis;
  
• Kennedy and companion raise the alarm, calling "Jack the Ripper" as BGB escapes, whereupon he is apprehended by a passing gentleman.

Given the above, why was it Lewis and not Kennedy who was selected to give evidence? That said, whilst there's a huge amount of overlap, there are differences in detail (e.g. Kennedy doesn't report Wideawake Man), so why weren't both women called? It's not as if Kennedy could have slipped away, because she says that she was kept in Miller's Court whilst the police conducted their enquiries...which also forms part of Lewis's narrative. Hardly surprising, if "Kennedy" was actually Lewis under a different name, or an impostor passing off Lewis's story as her own.

[Trevor Marriott]

But the "Kennedy" story contains detail missing from Lewis's account:

• Two women (not one) are seen outside the Britannia, only one of whom is talking to a man;
  
• A woman (possibly Kelly) exchanges words with Britannia-Man;
  
• Britannia-Man asks the woman "Are you coming?" (Lewis, by contrast, doesn't mention any specific utterances);
  
• The woman turns 'obstinately' away from the man;
  
• The Bethnal Green Botherer [BGB] reported by Kennedy is 5'7", contrasting with the "short" man seen by Lewis;
  
• Kennedy gives a more detailed description of BGB's appearance and clothing than Lewis does;
  
• Kennedy gives more details about BGB's behaviour (e.g. he appeared "agitated", he said "I only want one of you") than Lewis;
  
• Kennedy and companion raise the alarm, calling "Jack the Ripper" as BGB escapes, whereupon he is apprehended by a passing gentleman.

Given the above, why was it Lewis and not Kennedy who was selected to give evidence? That said, whilst there's a huge amount of overlap, there are differences in detail (e.g. Kennedy doesn't report Wideawake Man), so why weren't both women called? It's not as if Kennedy could have slipped away, because she says that she was kept in Miller's Court whilst the police conducted their enquiries...which also forms part of Lewis's narrative. Hardly surprising, if "Kennedy" was actually Lewis under a different name, or an impostor passing off Lewis's story as her own.

As you know coroners court are there to establish a cause of death and if anyone was responsible. As I have pointed out many times, all throughout the various inquests on the victims we see many ambiguities, which arose, and many witness conflicts which were never explored at the time, and maybe should have been.It is almost impossible 130 years later to try to establish fully the truthfulness of much of the witness testimony.

All I now see is a plethora from researchers of "what if`s" "perhaps" "maybe" and "I think" 130 years later we are not ever going to get to the real truth.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

It is almost impossible 130 years later to try to establish fully the truthfulness of much of the witness testimony.

Quite, but that shouldn't stop us from critically evaluating the plausibility and trustworthiness of their stories.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If she only corroborated evidence given by another, the police/coroner probably thought there was no point in calling her to say something another witness had already said previous.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Or alternatively the Police thought the evidence was so close to Sarah Lewis's that she had heard it second hand.
Being cooped up in Millers Court all morning Sarah's evidence could have spread like wildfire especially if she had a loose tongue.
Sarah said On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman.
With a woman, not with my sister which is very likely what she would have said if Mrs Kennedy was such.

[Sam Flynn]

With a woman, not with my sister which is very likely what she would have said if Mrs Kennedy was such.

Good call.

[Trevor Marriott]

Quite, but that shouldn't stop us from critically evaluating the plausibility and trustworthiness of their stories.

What is the point? All we see are the same old issues in ripperology cropping up every so often, with the same handful of resident researchers going over it all again putting forward their same thoughts, and assessment and evaluation of the issues over and over again and getting no where.

Di Reid

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success"

They couldn't identify him there and then, in no way he is going to be identified 130 years later, in fact in reality there is not even a prime suspect

When will it all end ? you can only say the same things over and over again for so long before it gets boring, and to me its now getting to that stage now I have to say.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

you can only say the same things over and over again for so long before it gets boring, and to me its now getting to that stage now I have to say.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Trev.

[Wickerman]

But the "Kennedy" story contains detail missing from Lewis's account:

• Two women (not one) are seen outside the Britannia, only one of whom is talking to a man;
  
• A woman (possibly Kelly) exchanges words with Britannia-Man;
  
• Britannia-Man asks the woman "Are you coming?" (Lewis, by contrast, doesn't mention any specific utterances);
  
• The woman turns 'obstinately' away from the man;
  
• The Bethnal Green Botherer [BGB] reported by Kennedy is 5'7", contrasting with the "short" man seen by Lewis;
  
• Kennedy gives a more detailed description of BGB's appearance and clothing than Lewis does;
  
• Kennedy gives more details about BGB's behaviour (e.g. he appeared "agitated", he said "I only want one of you") than Lewis;
  
• Kennedy and companion raise the alarm, calling "Jack the Ripper" as BGB escapes, whereupon he is apprehended by a passing gentleman.

Given the above, why was it Lewis and not Kennedy who was selected to give evidence? That said, whilst there's a huge amount of overlap, there are differences in detail (e.g. Kennedy doesn't report Wideawake Man), so why weren't both women called? It's not as if Kennedy could have slipped away, because she says that she was kept in Miller's Court whilst the police conducted their enquiries...which also forms part of Lewis's narrative. Hardly surprising, if "Kennedy" was actually Lewis under a different name, or an impostor passing off Lewis's story as her own.

Gareth, none of this is helpful to an inquest.

The coroner was interested in the man outside the Britannia, and the loiterer outside Millers Court. We can determine this from the inquest record.
There is nothing in Kennedy's story which substantially differs from what Lewis said concerning the Britannia-man (BGB).

Trevor is perfectly correct, the coroner has a duty to pursue the evidence which identifies the victim, and serves to establish the where, when & how the victim met her death.
The list you provide above is superfluous to that end.

The only difference of note which we may hi-lite is that Kennedy said she saw Kelly about 3:00. Though this may not have been the issue that some here have tried to create if the cry of murder came sometime between 3:30 - 4:00, as was reported.
The coroner would take it as a given that the victim was alive until that time. So calling Kennedy to state the obvious is unnecessary.