Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[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]

"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]

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]

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.

[curious]

Most impoverished Irish emigrating from my country in the mid to late 19th century would have been semi-literate at best and completely illiterate more often than not. Spell that for me please is unlikely to have clarified matters for a police officer.
Muddied the waters to even greater confusion more like!

You're right of course. And names that come from outside an area, spoken in an accent are still difficult to decipher in the 21st century.

[harry]

Well thank god my Irish grandfather was named Charlie Ford,and he could write to that effect.But wait a minute,'Charlie'.Can I be sure?

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

We have to make allowances for misspelled, mispronounced & missunderstood vocalized surnames.

Regards, Jon S.

Thanks Jon,
You've said in one sentence what I tried to say in 5 posts!

[Garry Wroe]

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.

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. No-one other than officially sanctioned personnel was allowed to enter or leave the court, a situation that prevailed until Mary Jane’s body was removed and all residents and their guests had been questioned. Since Sarah Lewis was interviewed during this period of sequestration, it can be stated with absolute certainty that she couldn’t have acquired information that was circulating outside the court – from Mrs Kennedy, for example. Given also that Mrs Kennedy was not present whilst police conducted these interviews, Sarah couldn’t have learned details of the Kennedy story from inside the court either. In other words, Sarah was the originator of the narrative that later did the rounds courtesy of Kennedy, and it is thus Sarah’s accounts (police and inquest) that should take precedence over any other version.

But frankly, Casebook has plumbed new depths when such an obvious reality has to be restated.

[Wickerman]

I believe that any police officer of that time,or even the present,if unsure of any words spoken,would ask the person speaking to write the name on paper.

Eliza Gold could only mark an ' X ' as her signature on her pre-inquest statement for the Eddowes inquiry.
I don't know if Sarah Lewis signed her statement, I don't have a copy of the originals. Other examples exist in official paperwork where, for instance, Lawende was recorded by police alternately as Lawrence, Lewin, and Lamende.

We have to make allowances for misspelled, mispronounced & missunderstood vocalized surnames.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

You mean Tá (Pronounced Taw in English).
No need for the word if all you want to say is one word: Sorry.
Is mise le meas pronounced phonetically in English as Is misha le mass which means "sincerely" in the Irish language - that is for getting your name wrong in previous post.
If you want to test me on my Irish, all future replies to you will be as Gaeilge (in Irish: pronounced phonetically in English as aus Gaylegeh). Try me!!

Why do you think I would want to test you? I was just explaining how I learned it. We didn't shorten things probably because it was straight from books.
Don't fight with me, Dubliner.

Mike

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Hello Siobhan.
So just to clear up any misunderstanding, are you saying you agree with what I last posted, the opinion of Gareth (Sam) 3 years ago?


Thankyou, Jon S.

If you read my other posts just recently on this thread, I tried to clarify things about the common mis-pronunciation of Irish Surnames which would - at least in my opinion - have lead to the misspelling and possible change in the eventual way an original Irish Surname would be spelt/ pronounced. If you check on genalogy websites you will find myriad examples of this happening with Irish Surnames. Just one example as a demonstration: O'Riada pronounced phonetically in English as O Reeudda is now pronouced Reid or Reed etc in the Anglicised/ simpler version of the name.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with what was posted 3 years ago.
Suddenly I need to lie down in a darkened room....

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

or simply say: "Spell that for me, please."

Most impoverished Irish emigrating from my country in the mid to late 19th century would have been semi-literate at best and completely illiterate more often than not. Spell that for me please is unlikely to have clarified matters for a police officer.
Muddied the waters to even greater confusion more like!

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

I would have put 'Ta' in front, but no problems.


Mike

You mean Tá (Pronounced Taw in English).
No need for the word if all you want to say is one word: Sorry.
Is mise le meas pronounced phonetically in English as Is misha le mass which means "sincerely" in the Irish language - that is for getting your name wrong in previous post.
If you want to test me on my Irish, all future replies to you will be as Gaeilge (in Irish: pronounced phonetically in English as aus Gaylegeh). Try me!!

[curious]

I believe that any police officer of that time,or even the present,if unsure of any words spoken,would ask the person speaking to write the name on paper.

or simply say: "Spell that for me, please."

[harry]

I believe that any police officer of that time,or even the present,if unsure of any words spoken,would ask the person speaking to write the name on paper.