Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[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.

[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]

"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?

[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

[Heinrich]

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

“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!

[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!

[caz]

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

Love,

Caz
X

[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]

[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.

[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.