Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

Do you consider yourself hard done by, Ben? You really should not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

"Overwhelmingly likely"?, for goodness sakes!, this was seven years ago, a full seven years before the Sarah Lewis we are concerned about.

Yes, Jon. I think it overwhelmingly likely that the Sarah Lewis lived in Great Pearl Street in 1881. Some of us have actually conducted the research. Decades ago. It turns out that the name ‘Sarah Lewis’ was not exactly prevalent in East London during the relevant timeframe. Thus we have two Sarah Lewises, one a fifteen year old Jewess of Eastern European extraction who resided in Great Pearl Street in 1881, the other a ‘young woman’ described as having ‘negress-type’ features who also happened to have lived in Great Pearl Street in 1888.

Coincidence?

Possibly. But given the rarity value of the Sarah Lewis name, the commonality of their age group, their distinctly foreign lineage or appearance, as well as the fact that each had lived or was living in Great Pearl Street, I think it highly probable that they were one and the same.

Desperate claims require desperate measures, we might suppose.

Desperate? No, Jon, this is desperate:-

Lewis may have given her name as Kennedy so her husband didn't find out where she went that night.

So Sarah adopted an alias in order to avoid the disgrace of admitting that she’d spent the night with her friends the Keylers, but thought nothing of revealing that she had been prostituting herself in Bethnal Green the previous Wednesday?

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.

Lewis and Kennedy are not of equal status. Sarah Lewis provided an official witness statement that could not have been influenced by the rumour and misinformation that was spreading like wildfire beyond the confines of Miller’s Court. Likewise, Sarah appeared at the inquest where her observations were officially documented for a second time.

And Mrs Kennedy?

Her narrative, as far as can be ascertained, was confined solely to press reports and was never subjected to official scrutiny.

But therein lies the irony, Jon. Not too long ago you were emphatic in your denunciation of the newspaper evidence cited by other posters, insisting that official sources must always take precedence over press reports. Yet here we are just a few weeks later and you are now asserting that the Kennedy newspaper claims should be accorded the same weighting as the official statements provided by Sarah Lewis. Small wonder that some have difficulty in taking your arguments seriously.

As for the disparities regarding the Lewis and Kennedy accounts, Kennedy claimed to have been with her sister in Bethnal Green Road; Lewis stated that she was in the company of a friend. Kennedy claimed to have entered Dorset Street at three o’clock; Lewis’s appearance occurred half an hour earlier. Unlike Lewis, Kennedy made no mention of the man loitering opposite the Miller’s Court interconnecting passage. And whereas Lewis stated that she spent the night with her friends the Keylers, Kennedy claimed to have visited her parents.

Although this in itself is not conclusive proof that Lewis and Kennedy were different women, I think it likely that Sarah’s probity would have been challenged at the Kelly inquest had the authorities suspected that she had presented newspapers with a conflicting account under the name of Kennedy. That her evidence was accepted unreservedly is indicative that the authorities were either unaware of the Kennedy press reports, or that Lewis and Kennedy were known to have been discrete individuals.

Or is that just me being ‘selective’ again?

[Wickerman]

Yes, Jon. I think it overwhelmingly likely that the Sarah Lewis lived in Great Pearl Street in 1881.

Ok Garry, thankyou for confirming that you have not found it necessary in the past few days to reconsider your opinion.
So, would I be correct if I assumed that you thought it a better than 50% chance that this 15 year old Sarah Lewis which Sally introduced from the 1881 census should be our witness Sarah Lewis in 1888?

For the sake of argument I'll assume in the affirmative.

And part of the reason you feel so convinced is because you are a seasoned researcher, hence the “slap across the face”- type response below?

Some of us have actually conducted the research. Decades ago. It turns out that the name ‘Sarah Lewis’ was not exactly prevalent in East London during the relevant timeframe.

Now, as far as criteria goes to help us identify this elusive Sarah Lewis, we have very little, correct? The Star offers us their opinion that Sarah Lewis had “negroid features”?
What precisely we are to assume that means is anybody's guess, broad cheekbones, thick lips, curled black hair, flat or broad nose? All of the above, or only some?
Apparently Lewis was not a full-blooded negro then, if that had been the case we might expect the Star to have just come right out and said so?
So our Sarah Lewis may have had some African blood in her family in the recent past.

Quote:
Since the mid-16th century there have been small numbers of black people resident in Ireland, mainly concentrated in the major towns, especially Dublin. Many of those in the 18th century were servants of wealthy families.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_Ireland

Normally I hate to use Wiki as a reference, but this issue is so trivial I have no need to dwell on the fact any length of time.

Your partner in crime, Ben, doesn't seem to think negroid features are compatible with an Irish accent, rather he seems to think such features are more consistent with a person of Jewish extraction. I can't imagine where he got that idea from, but I can't imagine where he gets a lot of his ideas from. So perhaps you think along those same lines?
As census records do not give ethnicity then these criteria are of no help, agreed?

What else do we have?, perhaps I need to remind you that in her pre-inquest statement Sarah Lewis mentioned the reason for her visiting the Keylers. That she had had a few words with her husband?
Whether she actually said “my man”, and the officer only wrote down “husband” we will never know. Lewis may have been married, or may have been living common-law, in either case she mentioned having a man in her life, a husband.

It would be rather strange if Sarah Lewis had attempted to deceive the police by giving them her maiden name, only to give her status away by unnecessarily bringing up the fact she had a husband.
Lewis could have given any number of reasons to the police as to why she visited the Keylors that night. Therefore, on balance, and in leu of any evidence to the contrary, it would appear our witness, Sarah Lewis, was married.

Your 15 year old girl in 1881 wasn't married by any chance, was she?


If we take a look at the 1891 census for Great Pearl St. you have no doubt noticed that Sarah Lewis & family, have moved on. We know many of the Whitechapel inhabitants moved about quite frequently, certainly the renters.
So, wherever Sarah Lewis lived in the 1891 census, it was not Great Pearl St., so where did she live?

But given the rarity value of the Sarah Lewis name, the commonality of their age group, their distinctly foreign lineage or appearance, as well as the fact that each had lived or was living in Great Pearl Street, I think it highly probable that they were one and the same.

So sayeth the seasoned researcher?

So what do you suggest I do with this handful of Sarah Lewis's, resident in Whitechapel in 1891?

Sarah Lewis, 24 Pelham St. Married, age 21.
Sarah Lewis, 6 Chicksand St, Married, age 28.
Sarah Lewis, 60 Spelman St, Married, age 29.
Sarah Lewis, 49 Heneage St, Married, 28.
Sarah Lewis, 29 Dunk St. Married, age 19/18?
Sarah Lewis, 6 New Castle St. Married, age 40.

There was another Sarah Lewis, also married, but as she was 66 years old, I think we can safely rule her out as not being the one 'accosted' by a gentleman in Bethnal Green Rd. The last one listed above might be a little old in the tooth at 40, but my brief venture into the census records was not by any means exhaustive, there most likely were many more Sarah Lewis's just waiting to be rediscovered.


It may also be of interest for you to know that in this brief window of time I also located a Kaylor/Keyler family residing at 46 Queen Anne St. in 1891.
John Keyler, aged 48, General Labourer, born. Ireland, c/w wife age 47, & son John age 10/16?, Katie 7?.
As the Keyler's were no longer resident in Miller's Court in 1891, they must have moved somewhere, and I trust you might appreciate the name Keyler is a less frequent name than even Lewis?

So, does our seasoned researcher feel like reconsidering his position today?, especially now that he has learned just how many other more viable Sarah Lewis's existed in immediate walking distance of Dorset St.?

So now you have experienced “diminution”, a lessening of value. Please note that your belief in a 15 year old girl is not “discredited”, it has only suffered “diminution”. Which means rather like Hutchinson's description, slipped from 1st place to 2nd place, not discredited, just diminished in value.

Jon

[Garry Wroe]

And part of the reason you feel so convinced is because you are a seasoned researcher, hence the “slap across the face”- type response below?

My opinions regarding Sarah Lewis are evidentially based, Jon. As for the nature of my response, that was shaped by the arrogant, condescending tone of your previous post.

What else do we have?, perhaps I need to remind you that in her pre-inquest statement Sarah Lewis mentioned the reason for her visiting the Keylers. That she had had a few words with her husband?

And perhaps I need to remind you that a large proportion of local ‘married’ couples during this period weren’t officially man and wife. In case you’ve forgotten, Jack McCarthy believed that Kelly and Barnett were married. According to the Reverend Barnett, there was a lot of it about at the time.

Sarah Lewis, 24 Pelham St. Married, age 21.
Sarah Lewis, 6 Chicksand St, Married, age 28.
Sarah Lewis, 60 Spelman St, Married, age 29.
Sarah Lewis, 49 Heneage St, Married, 28.
Sarah Lewis, 29 Dunk St. Married, age 19/18?
Sarah Lewis, 6 New Castle St. Married, age 40.

And this list is intended to prove what, Jon? If it’s meant to demonstrate what a clever fellow you are, you may rest assured that these as well as other Sarah Lewises are distinctly old news.

But didn’t you express the belief that Sarah used an alias when making her police statement in order to prevent her husband from finding out that she’d stayed in Miller’s Court on the night of the Kelly murder? If so, Sarah Lewis wasn’t her real name and your list of candidates is thus utterly meaningless.

So now you have experienced “diminution”, a lessening of value. Please note that your belief in a 15 year old girl is not “discredited”, it has only suffered “diminution”. Which means rather like Hutchinson's description, slipped from 1st place to 2nd place, not discredited, just diminished in value.

As I understand it, your primary interest lies in the field of archaeology. Perhaps this explains why you exhibit a seemingly unerring capacity to dig yourself into a hole.

[Sally]

So what do you suggest I do with this handful of Sarah Lewis's, resident in Whitechapel in 1891?

Exactly so. A handful. Not a multitude. And living in Great Pearl Street? Just the one. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot, is there?

That Miss Sarah Lewis of Great Pearl Street (who, by the way, was a neighbour of a Kennedy family) and Sarah Lewis the witness were one and the same is a wholly reasonable conclusion to draw.

[Wickerman]

Exactly so. A handful. Not a multitude. And living in Great Pearl Street? Just the one. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot, is there?

That Miss Sarah Lewis of Great Pearl Street (who, by the way, was a neighbour of a Kennedy family) and Sarah Lewis the witness were one and the same is a wholly reasonable conclusion to draw.

Where did "multitude" come into this debate?, and pray explain what having a neighbour named Kennedy, in 1881, has to do with events which happened seven years later in 1888?

Jon

[Wickerman]

And this list is intended to prove what, Jon? If it’s meant to demonstrate what a clever fellow you are, you may rest assured that these as well as other Sarah Lewises are distinctly old news.

I never intend to prove anything Garry, what I endeavor to do is level the playing field. When you make such comments as:

... If, as seems overwhelmingly likely, this was the same Sarah Lewis who resided in Great Pearl Street at the time of the 1881 census,...

You only give one example where others certainly existed. In not mentioning equal contenders I consider it remiss on your part, presumably, in your continuing effort to substantiate your argument at the expense of what is truely known by those who have the means to look.
It is possibly true that most of the readers of Casebook do not have copies of census records with which to judge your claim of, "overwhelmingly likely". I prefer to provide a little balance to such one-sided claims.

...But didn’t you express the belief that Sarah used an alias when making her police statement in order to prevent her husband from finding out that she’d stayed in Miller’s Court on the night of the Kelly murder? If so, Sarah Lewis wasn’t her real name and your list of candidates is thus utterly meaningless....

Where you choose to argue from the perspective of one who "knows" the solution to these issues, I choose to argue that no-one today can "know" the true solution.
What we have is a situation where at least two solutions exist, and no-one, not even you Garry, can possibly claim to "know", no matter how persuasive you try to construct your arguments. Wheras I have never claimed to "know", you see the difference?

- Sarah Lewis may have been her maiden name, and that Mrs Kennedy may have been her married name.

- Sarah Lewis may have been her married name, and Lewis visited the same house 30 mins before Mrs Kennedy arrived, ie, they were separate people.

There are small problems with both scenario's, such is the state of the evidence we have.

Where you may choose to use wording which implies you "know", I may insist you do not know.
Without the qualification "in my opinion" your comment could easily be misconstrued into meaning "it is obvious to everyone", which would be completely untrue.

You may notice I was careful not to dismiss your "belief" entirely, it is a contender, one of two and nothing more, certainly not "overwhelmingly likely".

Those Sarah Lewis's I offered are not the only one's in the 1891 census. And to counter your claim once again, another 'single' Sarah Lewis exists where she is a "servant" in 1891, and 20? years old.
Now you have two contenders as "single" girls, perhaps they are now both "overwhelmingly likely", in your opinion?

As I understand it, your primary interest lies in the field of archaeology. Perhaps this explains why you exhibit a seemingly unerring capacity to dig yourself into a hole.

I appreciate the humour, there's nothing wrong with that.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

And living in Great Pearl Street? Just the one.

Precisely, Sally.

The only Sarah Lewis who can be placed in Great Pearl Street to anyone's knowledge has to be the most likely candidate for the witness in question, and by a significant margin. These "equal contenders" are nothing of the sort as they fail to meet this crucial and rather obvious criterion. As my “partner in crime” Garry astutely observed, it is unlikely to be a coincidence: an 1881 Sarah Lewis of foreign extraction living in Great Pearl Street, and an 1888 Sarah Lewis with “negress-type” of features also living in Great Pearl Street. For the benefit of Jon’s enlightenment, it was the Daily News that made the “negress” observation, not the Star.

It seems that some people are eager to resist this identification out of preference for the idea that Kennedy equals Lewis, which is obviously not the case at all. Similarly, the notion that the real Sarah Lewis had anything to do with Ireland is completely without foundation.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Where did "multitude" come into this debate?, and pray explain what having a neighbour named Kennedy, in 1881, has to do with events which happened seven years later in 1888?

Jon

How terribly nonsensical. I'll try to explain.

I believe that it was you who pointed to the other Sarah Lewis's living in the East End at the time, with a clear inference that support for the individual living at Great Pearl Street in 1881 had been overplayed.

In case you don't get it, there were very few women by the name of Sarah Lewis living in the East End at the time. Considering that one of them was living in Great Pearl Street in 1881, her identification with the witness Sarah Lewis is wholly reasonable.

And this Sarah Lewis was a Polish Jew. She wasn't Irish, end of story.

As for her having been a neighbour of the Kennedy's - well, what does it have to do with the events of seven years later? Maybe nothing - perhaps a coincidence.

Yet I think there comes a point at which insistence on coincidence begins to sound like special pleading. There seems to be a lot of it about.

[Garry Wroe]

Where you choose to argue from the perspective of one who "knows" the solution to these issues, I choose to argue that no-one today can "know" the true solution … What we have is a situation where at least two solutions exist, and no-one, not even you Garry, can possibly claim to "know", no matter how persuasive you try to construct your arguments. Wheras I have never claimed to "know", you see the difference?

I’m unsure as to whether you are confusing me with someone else, Jon, or have simply misread my posts on the Lewis issue. Either way, I have never claimed to know that the two Great Pearl Street Lewises were one and the same. Even were I not trained in the methodology of science, common sense alone would deter me from dealing in absolutes when the evidence itself is inconclusive.

What the evidence does tell us, however, is that a fifteen year old Jewish Sarah Lewis was living in Great Pearl Street in 1881. Seven years later, a Sarah Lewis described as a ‘young woman’ with ‘negress-type’ features resided in this same street. My contention, based upon names, likely ages and ethnographic considerations, is that the two Sarahs were almost certainly the same person. I do not claim to know anything, and would happily revise my opinion were you or anybody else able to produce anything in the way of credible disconfirmatory evidence.

Those Sarah Lewis's I offered are not the only one's in the 1891 census. And to counter your claim once again, another 'single' Sarah Lewis exists where she is a "servant" in 1891, and 20? years old … Now you have two contenders as "single" girls, perhaps they are now both "overwhelmingly likely", in your opinion?

But overwhelmingly likely as what, Jon? I’m genuinely confused as to your reasoning for posting the details of these 1991 Sarah Lewises. You could post a thousand of them, but what would it prove other than an unusually high prevalence rate? Unless you are able to provide a definitive link to the Sarah Lewis, it amounts to nothing more than an exercise in futility. What’s more, you have been posting these Lewis examples despite your earlier asseveration that Sarah misrepresented her name to the authorities in order to preserve her anonymity. If that was indeed the case, none of the Lewises you have cited could have been the woman who appeared at the Kelly inquest. Leastways, not unless at some point between late-1888 and early-1891 Sarah separated from her spouse and then married (or took up with) a man named Lewis.

Finally, in order to place your argument in its proper context, it must be reiterated that the name Sarah Lewis was not prevalent at the time of the murders. The East End encompassed a population of some 900,000 persons, almost ten percent of which (80,000) resided in Whitechapel. In other words, Jon, we are dealing not with a country hamlet consisting of a couple of dozen families, but rather a densely populated conurbation wherein the name Sarah Lewis was a comparative rarity. Thus two Sarah Lewises of foreign extraction who lived in the same street within a seven year timeframe is noteworthy in my view. And whilst it may well prove to have been coincidental, it remains a far more compelling explanation for the antecedents of Sarah Lewis than does the assumption of an Irish lineage based upon an unconfirmed newspaper report linking her to the Gallaghers.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, I for one would welcome the opportunity to examine it.

[Garry Wroe]

I’m genuinely confused as to your reasoning for posting the details of these 1991 Sarah Lewises.

Sorry. That should have read 1891.

[RedBundy13]

witness vs. evidence

I too agree that evidence is much stronger than eyewitness testimony. The trick is to corroborate the two and find something that fits in both.... I think

[Malcolm X]

I too agree that evidence is much stronger than eyewitness testimony. The trick is to corroborate the two and find something that fits in both.... I think

evidence?.... evidence is something that you can prove is factual, unfortunately there is nothing factual about the night of MJKs murder.... only suspicion..... not even her time of death.

something that fits both is still not good enough, because with clever manipulation, anything can be made to fit.

my guess is, it's what feels about right, combined with the possibility that we're missing something very obvious, but this depends on how intelligent JTR was/ his ego etc.

you're more likely to leave a clue that's well hidden at the time, or one that's left years later........when it doesn't matter any more.

well, that's what i'm hoping for anyway.

the problem we have is that these witnesses that lived in Millers court, are probably the most unreliable due to their circumstances, than all the others with regards to JTR.

They seem confused, open to tittle tattle, easily manipulated by the press, and likely to say anything just for 6 pence.... they dont even seem to know what night it was that she died !

are they easy to talk to by JTR, who might be waiting outside the inquest, MAYBE PRETENDING TO BE A JOURNALIST?...... oh yes, it's dead easy to make his story fit....and to manipulate this lot

but why does JTR need to bother, because they will never be able to catch him and everyone knows this, well maybe because he wants to !!!!!!!

all of this points to one person only, even with a 20% error, because the one thing that i'm suspicious of, is that it seems unlikely that JTR would keep his Identity a secret, because the Graffiti reflects that JTR is starting to play silly little games with the police, his ego is starting to take over !

this final murder isn't enough, he needs to carry on what he's started, to play games with the police.

hate it, or wont accept it, i think you'll find that GH is JTR, or he saw JTR
and for either suspect, being seen explains them downgrading and distancing themselves from JTR.

[Rubyretro]

hate it, or wont accept it, i think you'll find that GH is JTR, or he saw JTR
and for either suspect, being seen explains them downgrading and distancing themselves from JTR.

You can understand it Malcolm -I'd certainly be up for downgrading in the circumstances.

[RedBundy13]

hate it, or wont accept it, i think you'll find that GH is JTR, or he saw JTR
and for either suspect, being seen explains them downgrading and distancing themselves from JTR.

Some interesting points for sure, I am leaning towards GH to having seen JtR then being JtR. That's simply because I have no clue who the Ripper might have been. Right now I don't even have a suspect or even a leading contender for a suspect. I used to know who JtR was, no doubt in my mind I KNEW who he was,,,, until I did a little bit of research on my own and found him to be, well, not as promising as I had hoped. But who knows, like you say it may well have been Hutchinson.