Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis gave her address as Great Pearl Street, a thoroughfare that lay a few hundred yards to the north of Dorset Street. If, as seems overwhelmingly likely, this was the same Sarah Lewis who resided in Great Pearl Street at the time of the 1881 census, she was of Jewish parentage and East European extraction. Thus her parents were neither Irish, nor named Keyler or Gallagher.

Yes, we were all present when Sally brought that to the table.
"Overwhelmingly likely"?, for goodness sakes!, this was seven years ago, a full seven years before the Sarah Lewis we are concerned about.
That 15 year old girl could have grown up, moved or got married long before the winter of 1888.
It is absolutely not "overwhelmingly likely" by any stretch of the imagination.
What it is, is one of several possibilities.

Only 3 years later, 1891 census, one Sarah Green (M), Tailoress, born in Ireland was living in Great Pearl St. Perhaps married to one George Green also at the same address. Whether this was a common-law arrangement we may never know.
A marriage licence would help immensely, but that may be too much to expect.
Our elusive Sarah Lewis could have married (if she wasn't already) or moved out of the area in 3 years, and you choose to hang your hat on 7 years?

Desperate claims require desperate measures, we might suppose.

[FONT=Verdana]As for the notion that Mrs Kennedy’s narrative should be accorded equal or even greater weighting than that of Sarah Lewis, it should be borne in mind that Sarah awoke on the morning of Friday 9 November to find Miller’s Court in the possession of the police.

Correction!, it should be noted that both Mrs Kennedy AND Sarah Lewis were enclosed within Millers Court on Friday morning.
We are in no position to judge otherwise.

Until evidence is found to show that they were not the same person, or, until evidence is found to show that they did not experience the same events together, or as separate people, then their evidence must be taken as complementing each other. They have equal status in so far as providing background to events that night.

The balance of evidence as it presently exists strongly indicates that they were the same person. However, at this late date, nothing can be deemed conclusive.

[Ben]

Correction!, it should be noted that both Mrs Kennedy AND Sarah Lewis were enclosed within Millers Court on Friday morning.

No, Mrs. Kennedy was not "enclosed within Miller's Court on Friday morning".

"Mrs. Kennedy" was a bogus witness who plagiarized Lewis' account and attempted to pass it off as her own experience, as reported in the Star. She was not an alias of Sarah Lewis for that crucial reason. She was most certainly not somebody who had an identical experience to Lewis, but who magically failed to mention her as having fallen asleep in that gradually crowding house that was room #2. Coincides of such epic proportions are rare, bordering on impossible.

The two women do not have "equal status" as witnesses. Lewis gave a police statement, and appeared at the inquest, unlike Kennedy (in both cases). Kennedy only appeared in a few 10th November press reports before sinking without trace thereafter. To suggest that she should be accorded equal status to that of an inquest witness is reckless nonsense.

I agree with Garry and Sally's observations with regard to the likely identity of Sarah Lewis, incidentally. Better to look at "Sarah Lewis" as our first investigative port of call at least, rather than latching onto some woman named "Sarah Green" and assuming she must have the maiden name "Lewis".

[Wickerman]

"Mrs. Kennedy" was a bogus witness who plagiarized Lewis' account and attempted to pass it off as her own experience, as reported in the Star.

No, she was not bogus at all.
Who she was is still to be determined. Had there been a Murder Trial as opposed to a Coroner's Inquest Mrs Kennedy would no doubt have been brought forward, assuming she was not already present as Sarah Lewis.

The two women do not have "equal status" as witnesses. Lewis gave a police statement, and appeared at the inquest, unlike Kennedy (in both cases).

Schwartz is the prime example of the importance of a witnesses testimony outside of the Coroner's Inquiry.

I agree with Garry and Sally's observations with regard to the likely identity of Sarah Lewis, incidentally. Better to look at "Sarah Lewis" as our first investigative port of call at least, rather than latching onto some woman named "Sarah Green" and assuming she must have the maiden name "Lewis".

But of course you would, that comes as no surpise.
One major difference between you and I is that where I offer suggestions for alternate solutions, you only offer assertions for your own conclusions.
And, quite predictably, you try to make something out of nothing, again.

From suggesting we look at another "Irish" Sarah who works with clothes, living in the same street, you turn this suggestion into an assumption.
I made no such assumption as anyone can see.

Earlier, in another post you vainly called on Sugden as if beckoning for support in your contension that women were repeating stories, whereas the press report only mentions duplicate claims of hearing the cry of "murder", at various times.

Sugden continues by saying, "Inevitably, much of the press coverage was fiction", and at the end of the paragraph, "..journalists themselves, determined to exploit the astonishing runs on the papers afer each murder, were more than usually willing to invent copy of their own".
A fact I have been attempting to impress on you for the past several weeks.

Not to mention Sugden's acceptance, on logical grounds, of Hutchinson's statement, of course, we don't want to bring that up do we?
Certainly, and quite reasonably Sugden comments that Hutchinson's statement may not be above question, and that is true. Sugden also gives Abberline his due credit and that Hutchinson must have presented a sound and reliable witness as he left a lasting impression on Abberline.
Something else we don't want to hear!

Yes, you can bring up Violenia if you like, and praise the police for their astute interrogation and early dismissal of Violenia's claims. But then the shoe is on the other foot when it comes to the police interviewing Hutchinson. No dismissal here, no discredit, but because Hutchinson's story was accepted you now see the need for 'special pleading' and call upon support from, of all sources, the Star! ......and claim Hutchinson must have been discredited later, just that the official documentation, or any hints of such have mysteriously vanished!
Smoke & mirrors, Ben, just smoke & mirrors...

Funny enough, because those same official sources do not exist (and likely never did), you call upon the most dubious of sources for support from the likes of Macnaghten & Anderson, yet, Phil Sugden, once again, does not agree with you, as he correctly points out that officials like Anderson likely never saw a witness, "let alone interviewed, a single one of them. Abberline who did interrogate them, who looked them in the eye, seems to have been particularly impressed by Hutchinson".

And yes, I know it's only opinion, but you call up Sugden and then 'cherry-pick' what you want to use as if to say, "you should believe me if Sugden agree's with me".
Well, he didn't agree with you!

Your position is to insist that Kennedy was parroting a story. Sugden correctly and reservedly writes that this story is, "a circumstance which may explain" why Lewis's story is sometimes credited to Kennedy. With emphasis on the "may explain", ..not irrefutable, ..not clearly, ..not obviously!

Jon S.

[Ben]

“Who she was is still to be determined. Had there been a Murder Trial as opposed to a Coroner's Inquest Mrs Kennedy would no doubt have been brought forward”

No, Jon.

Still no.

If Kennedy was considered a witness who could have provided evidence relevant to the time and location of death, a la Lewis, Prater and Cox, she would have been called to the inquest, just like they were. It’s as simple as that. The fact that she wasn’t is an extremely strong indication that she was filtered out beforehand as a less than credible witness, along with silly Paumier, Rooney, all the other press informants whose dubious and seldom-taken-seriously “evidence” you are hell-bent on reviving, apparently because of your fondness for well-dressed black-bag carrying suspects.

“From suggesting we look at another "Irish" Sarah who works with clothes, living in the same street, you turn this suggestion into an assumption.”

I was merely wondering why you were so anxious to pooh-pooh the far more logical candidate discussed a few pages back by Garry and Sally, in favour of a woman whose name wasn’t even Sarah Lewis. It was observed in the Daily News and the Bournemouth Visitors Directory that Lewis had a “negress-type of features”, which doesn’t sound very Irish to me.

“Earlier, in another post you vainly called on Sugden as if beckoning for support in your contension that women were repeating stories, whereas the press report only mentions duplicate claims of hearing the cry of "murder", at various times.”

I’ve dealt with this already. We have no record of any women repeating the “Oh murder” detail in isolation from any other aspect of Lewis' story, so it can’t have been this detail ONLY that was repeated. Evidently therefore, Kennedy copied the full account of Lewis. Since Kennedy offers the only other version of the “murder” cry heard by Lewis and Prater, there can be no doubt whatsoever that she was one of the “half a dozen women” referred to by the Star as having copied an “Oh murder” account. In this case, she clearly plagiarized other aspects of the account too. You just have to accept that we have two pieces of evidence that attest to the same observation; the Star's observation about an account being plagiarized and the "Mrs. Kennedy" account, which mirrors Lewis' suspiciously closely.

Schwartz is a non-comparison, incidentally. Yes, I'm quite aware that he didn't appear at the inquest, but it is also true that his account did not resemble any other, unlike the alarming degree of Lewis-Kennedy similarity.

In referencing Sugden, I wasn’t discussing his opinions, but rather his presentation of the facts. I can commend him for this without having to endorse any of his opinions. Sugden has an obvious preference for Klosowski as a suspect, and even advanced the rather unfortunate argument that he may have been the Astrakhan man. Certainly, the notion that Hutchinson had a “lasting impression on Abberline” is wholly lacking in any support and is quite contrary to the evidence.

If you like Sugden's opinions, though, you might appreciate the following:

“Our search for the facts about the murder of Mary Kelly must discount the unsupported tattle of the Victorian press”.

"Yes, you can bring up Violenia if you like, and praise the police for their astute interrogation and early dismissal of Violenia's claims. But then the shoe is on the other foot when it comes to the police interviewing Hutchinson."

Nonsense. The “shoe” is on precisely the same “foot” for Hutchinson, since he was also dismissed and discredited, and not just by the Star, but by the police, who informed the Echo as much, and whose later memoirs and interviews bear out. I have no idea where you’re going with your Anderson and Macnaghten musings, but if you were suggesting that their views count for nothing, I’d have a serious re-think. All investigational details would have arrived at the desks of the senior officials eventually, and it was their professional duty to assess and scrutinize them. If you think meeting Hutchinson is a pre-prerequisite for assessing his claims, you are sorely mistaken.

This might be more of the “Abberline wore a white hat while all his superiors wore black ones” school of thought again.

[Wickerman]

If Kennedy was considered a witness who could have provided evidence relevant to the time and location of death, a la Lewis, Prater and Cox, she would have been called to the inquest, just like they were.

Which is one of the principal considerations in support of Kennedy actually being Lewis.

along with silly Paumier, Rooney, all the other press informants whose dubious and seldom-taken-seriously “evidence” you are hell-bent on reviving, apparently because of your fondness for well-dressed black-bag carrying suspects.

Ok, Ben, you guy's need to get your heads together to figure this one out.
We all know the principal witnesses were sealed inside Millers Court, yet the press first published Paumier's statement in the Saturday morning papers. Morning papers are in press overnight therefore the journalists met with Paumier before anyone who knew anything was let out of the Court!

I was merely wondering why you were so anxious to pooh-pooh the far more logical candidate discussed a few pages back by Garry and Sally, in favour of a woman whose name wasn’t even Sarah Lewis. It was observed in the Daily News and the Bournemouth Visitors Directory that Lewis had a “negress-type of features”, which doesn’t sound very Irish to me.

A typically Jewish-negress no doubt?

No, I did not pooh-pooh the suggestion, I put it in priority, it does not sit as choice No. 1 when we are required to accept an interval of seven years had to elapse when we know lodging-house boarders were a mobile lot.
The other consideration is this, Lewis was the maiden name of the 15 year old girl, yet our Sarah Lewis had a husband in 1888.

I’ve dealt with this already.

YOU'VE dealt with this? What are you, some kind of self-appointed authority now?
Your strained explanations are deficient and only serve to support your equally strained conjectures.

Evidently therefore, Kennedy copied the full account of Lewis.

Oh, now you try to argue that Mrs Kennedy HAS a superb memory for all those intricate details, Friday morning including Wednesday night, yet Hutchinson cannot possibly remember those details about Astrachan?
Don't you see how pathetic that argument is?

If you like Sugden's opinions, though, you might appreciate the following:

“Our search for the facts about the murder of Mary Kelly must discount the unsupported tattle of the Victorian press”.

Which no doubt includes the Star?

I have no idea where you’re going with your Anderson and Macnaghten musings, but if you were suggesting that their views count for nothing, I’d have a serious re-think. All investigational details would have arrived at the desks of the senior officials eventually, and it was their professional duty to assess and scrutinize them. If you think meeting Hutchinson is a pre-prerequisite for assessing his claims, you are sorely mistaken.

You can read it yourself, voiced by Phil Sugden. I'm sure he would greatly appreciate YOU telling a historian how "sorley mistaken" he is.
(Why not, you try it with everyone else)

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“Which is one of the principal considerations in support of Kennedy actually being Lewis.”

I hardly think so, Jon.

It was even reported in the press that “Mrs. Kennedy” had given a statement to the police. Had it been widely accepted that Lewis had delivered false and conflicting testimony under an alias, she would hardly have been called to appear at the inquest.

“Morning papers are in press overnight therefore the journalists met with Paumier before anyone who knew anything was let out of the Court!”

What are you saying here? That Paumier was interviewed before anyone knew that there had been a murder in Dorset Street? This would be gravely in error, if so. Or are you saying that Paumier had no access to Sarah Lewis prior to the publication of the Saturday morning papers? This would also be deeply wrong, since the Miller’s Court witnesses were not “sealed in” for the whole day of the 9th. Lewis had plenty of time to get out and talk over her account to other women prior to the publication of the 10th November morning news.

“No, I did not pooh-pooh the suggestion, I put it in priority, it does not sit as choice No. 1”

…Which is ridiculous.

Who does sit at “choice No. 1” then? A woman who wasn’t even called Sarah Lewis, but who you happen to prefer because you want Lewis to have been Irish? You can embrace whatever “considerations” you like, but it’s only fair and logical to conclude that the “Sarah Lewis” candidate mentioned a few pages ago is a better bet than “Sarah Green”.

“YOU'VE dealt with this? What are you, some kind of self-appointed authority now?”

Not at all. I’m just pointing out the futility of repeating flawed arguments that have already been challenged, if not wholly demolished, already. It doesn't get you anywhere.

“Oh, now you try to argue that Mrs Kennedy HAS a superb memory for all those intricate details, Friday morning including Wednesday night”

What “intricate details"? The contention is that Kennedy copied Lewis’ account, as observed in the Star. She clearly botched the job as she was discredited in advance of the inquest. No “superb memory” required, and such, your suggested comparison with Hutchinson is utterly “pathetic”.

“I'm sure he would greatly appreciate YOU telling a historian how "sorley mistaken" he is.”

I’m afraid professional historians don’t have the monopoly on “ripperological” wisdom. If he or anyone else can provide evidence that Hutchinson had a “lasting impression on Abberline”, it should be provided.

It's about time you sought out one of those marginalia/Swanson/Kosminski threads. You might have better luck with those.

[Colin Roberts]

Remember how Barnett's reference to recognising Kelly.." and I identify it by the ear and eyes,", who would argue that the word "ear" should not have been "hair"?

Stewart Evans, apparently!

This is an old debate and has been addressed many times in the past. The written inquest statements have survived in the case of Kelly and should take precedence over the newspaper reports. Barnett's written statement clearly refers to 'the ear and the eyes'. Also Tom Robinson was present at the inquest and his account of Barnett's evidence states that he identified her 'by the peculiar shape of the ears and the colour of the eyes...' -

[ATTACH]12521[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]12522[/ATTACH]

[caz]

Maybe she had 'peculiar shaped hairs' as well, Colin. The mind boggles.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

It was even reported in the press that “Mrs. Kennedy” had given a statement to the police.

Yes, which reflects the fact that Lewis/Kennedy had spoke to the police. Like Mrs Durrell spoke, while actually being Mrs Long. Alias's were not so exceptional as you don't seem to realize.

Had it been widely accepted that Lewis had delivered false and conflicting testimony under an alias, she would hardly have been called to appear at the inquest.

Which leads us to draw the conclusion that Lewis/Kennedy gave no such false or conflicting testimony to anyone.
We already know what you label 'false' is only that which you choose to disbelieve.

.... Or are you saying that Paumier had no access to Sarah Lewis prior to the publication of the Saturday morning papers? This would also be deeply wrong, since the Miller’s Court witnesses were not “sealed in” for the whole day of the 9th.

No, ingress & egress was limited until 5:30pm, or thereabouts.

Mrs Paumier gave her statement in the afternoon.

You can embrace whatever “considerations” you like, but it’s only fair and logical to conclude that the “Sarah Lewis” candidate mentioned a few pages ago is a better bet than “Sarah Green”.

The argument was advanced that this 15 year old girl, of seven years previous, is the best choice, an argument inspired more by desperation than logic.

Not at all. I’m just pointing out the futility of repeating flawed arguments that have already been challenged, if not wholly demolished, already. It doesn't get you anywhere.

The press claimed they were given several "oh murder" claims associated with different times. This then is the reason none of these stories was printed.
And thats ALL the press were indicating.

What “intricate details"? The contention is that Kennedy copied Lewis’ account, as observed in the Star.

Lewis/Kennedy's experience as she related it to the press easily parallel's a small script, which actors will typically take days to rehearse, yet you have her committing this story memory in hours, and for what purpose?
There is far too much detail to repeat in the same sequence, you might want to try it sometime. The Evening News provides approx. 80+ lines from Lewis/Kennedy. Try reading 80 lines of anything for the first time, see how accurately you recall every detail.

The whole idea is so preposterous to border on the laughable, but then this is what we have come to expect from Ben's Fairy Tales.

I’m afraid professional historians don’t have the monopoly on “ripperological” wisdom. If he or anyone else can provide evidence that Hutchinson had a “lasting impression on Abberline”, it should be provided.

If I recall, these threads are littered with challenges for you to provide 'proof' of your wild assertions, all we get are the same-old, same-old!

[Ben]

“Like Mrs Durrell spoke, while actually being Mrs Long.”

Yes, but she didn’t provide hugely conflicting accounts that nonetheless make it very obvious that they proceeded from the same source. Mrs. Kennedy, by sharp contrast, gave a completely different time of arrival, a completely different name for the people living at number #2, and an actual sighting of Kelly at 3.00am that is conspicuously absent from Lewis’ police and inquest evidence. Lewis herself did not even know Kelly, let alone spot her with a spooky weirdo on the morning of her murder.

“No, ingress & egress was limited until 5:30pm, or thereabouts.

Mrs Paumier gave her statement in the afternoon.”

Which was still plenty of time for the Miller’s Court witnesses to emerge and discuss their evidence with outsiders who then went and blabbed to the press…and then got discredited, such was the fate of these 10th November witnesses whose nonsense you are anxious to revive in support of your dotty ideas about well-dressed wanderers.

“The argument was advanced that this 15 year old girl, of seven years previous, is the best choice, an argument inspired more by desperation than logic”

Oh, but of course. We’re all so incredibly “desperate” for Sarah Lewis to have been Polish and/or Jewish. She is a far better candidate than the one you’ve proposed, and whose name wasn’t even Sarah Lewis. You could even try joining us on our planet one of these days, if you wish.

“The press claimed they were given several "oh murder" claims associated with different times.”

No, they claimed that an “oh murder” claim was being plagiarized by half a dozen witnesses. Since “Mrs. Kennedy” was the only person we have on record with an “oh murder” account (besides Prater and Lewis), she must have been one of the plagiarizing witnesses referred to.

“There is far too much detail to repeat in the same sequence, you might want to try it sometime. The Evening News provides approx. 80+ lines from Lewis/Kennedy”

What fresh nonsense are you churning out now?

Who cares how many lines long Kennedy’s account was if the vast bulk of it had nothing to do with the original account that she had plagiarized. Read and digest the first paragraph of this post, and then you might understand that Kennedy had simply borrowed a few core components from Lewis’ account – spooky Wednesday man, Oh murder etc – but either invented or misremembered the rest. No extreme feat of memorization required here at all.

“but then this is what we have come to expect from Ben's Fairy Tales”.

Oh, I do love the “we”. You and this vast imaginary army of Ben-botherers, presumably?

“If I recall, these threads are littered with challenges for you to provide 'proof' of your wild assertions”

Nah, they’re littered with people like you making an easily swattable nuisance of themselves. Speaking of which, I’m just off to demolish yet more of your embarrassing nonsense on the Romford thread. See you there!

[Fisherman]

Right, Ben!

Can you please tell me how:

"...witnesses whose nonsense you are anxious to revive in support of your dotty ideas..."

and

"You could even try joining us on our planet one of these days, if you wish."

and

"What fresh nonsense are you churning out now?"

and

"Read and digest the first paragraph of this post, and then you might understand"

and

"Oh, I do love the “we”. You and this vast imaginary army of Ben-botherers, presumably?"

and

"people like you making an easily swattable nuisance of themselves."

exemplify your assertion on the Sunday morning PC encounter tread, that you "will always try to adopt a respectful approach to divergent opinions"?

You see, to me it is all very CONTRARY to this assertion. Which makes me think; why do you not say as it is- that you take every opportunity to smear and castigate, try to belittle and ridicule (pathetically failing, but that does not speak in favour of you anyway) and insult at every given opportunity? It is not as if it is any secret by now.

Why claim that you always try to adopt "a respectful attitude" against the ones who disagree with you?

You don´t, do you, Ben?

Fisherman

[Ben]

Why the selective reading, Fisherman?

Why are you focusing exclusively on my responses to rude posts, rather than the extremely rude posts that stimulated them?

Why don't you castigate Jon for comments like:

“The whole idea is so preposterous to border on the laughable, but then this is what we have come to expect from Ben's Fairy Tales.”

What sort of reaction does the author of that sort of statement seriously expect?

If people adopt an insulting attitude towards me, I’m going to give it back with interest. All the time.

It seems you’re being awfully unilateral in your ticking-off here.

[Wickerman]

Oh come on, you pride yourself as the schoolyard bully, and Casebook is your playground. I've seen a few bully's start to whimper when someone bites back.
You will reap what you sow my friend...

Why the selective reading, Fisherman?

Why don't you castigate Jon for comments like:

Perhaps, because Fisherman notice Garry Wroe's selective reading in attempting to castigate me, instead of you?

Easy to see where the lines are drawn..


Hears the deal..... if you don't sulk, neither will I, ok?

[Ben]

I've seen a few bully's start to whimper when someone bites back.

Oh, is that what you think you've beein doing?

How extremely poignant.

You're the second person tonight who has mentioned this ominous finger-wagging silliness about "reaping what (I) sow".

When I am going to get this comeuppance I've been assured of? I need to know when I can stop piddling myself with fear.

[Heinrich]