Who did Sarah See?

[Wickerman]

...They would have noted that while the accounts were remarkably similar, there were key differences.

Making the assumption that the accounts were even being compared is perhaps the first mistake.

Sarah Lewis was rather vague on the 9th when she told police "Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers,".
Kennedy's statement that same evening, or early next morning, only claimed, "about 3 o'clock". So when the time is finalised on the 12th as "2:30 am", we have reasonable consistency.

If you notice the Star article placed the cry of "murder" at 2:00 am when the story they were presenting claimed "3:00 am". These are minor discrepancies considering we are dealing with a period in our past where people really did not carry a watch and had to rely on town clocks or church bells.

I mentioned Edward Spooner before, he felt sure he arrived at Dutfields Yard at 12:35:
"I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard."
We know that was wrong too. On the one hand we all know how unreliable times are, yet all too often some jump on the "times" and use them as evidence against an argument they do not like.

Given the sheer implausibility of the notion that two women should have such near identical experiences on both the Wednesday and the Friday,

Not implausible if they were together, or they were the same person.

If there was any consideration that Mrs. Kennedy was a genuine witness, she would have been called to the inquest

The example of Schwartz as a genuine witness yet not appearing at the inquest demonstrates your next assumption is without foundation.

There is no reason to think that Sarah Lewis, the original witness, lied to anyone.

About what she witnessed, no. We agree on this much.

So just to clarify, I totally agree that Lewis and Kennedy were different people, but I don't accept for a moment that the latter was anything other than a Lewis copycat.

And that is exactly where we are, a difference of opinion only.
There is nothing certain, nothing clear and nothing irrefutable about it. We simply do not know either way for sure. All options are available.

I wouldn't be overly concerned with Sims. He was evidently working from memory and undoubtedly using the same press articles under discussion here.

It was current Ben, Sims was writing the week after this all occured. Though without understanding exactly what he was meaning by "the Kennedy's", I wouldn't place too much weight on his comment.

There wasn't the room in #2 Millers Court for two couples and two more women;

I think you might be surprised how many people squeezed into those small hovels they called home. Read through any census records or perhaps William Fishman's, East End 1888.

two women, that is, who both woke up at the same time, both heard the cry of murder, mysteriously didn't discuss it together at the time (despite arriving home within half an hour of each other),

You do not know if they discussed it. When police interview witnesses individually they express that you speak for yourself. This can give the impression when put in writing that no one else was present.

As for genealogical research, the most viable Sarah Lewis candidate was of Polish Jewish background.

A great deal can change in the years between a census. Very few people who were at Millers Court at that time have been traced, as I'm sure you know.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Surely somone would have noted that while Kennedy claims her parents lived in the court and that she knew Kelly at least by sight, Lewis said she was staying by friends and that she did not know Kelly.

Indeed, someone evidently did notice that, Marlowe. They would have noted that while the accounts were remarkably similar, there were key differences. Given the sheer implausibility of the notion that two women should have such near identical experiences on both the Wednesday and the Friday, the conclusion the Star (and evidently the police) came to was that certain women were copying an original and genuine account. Such an explanation perfectly accounts for the surprising degree of similarity between the two accounts as well as the points of departure - Kennedy was simply spicing up the account she'd heard with a sighting of Kelly herself, wholly absent from any of Lewis' offerings.

The Star may not have identified the roles correctly, but they clearly noted the phenomenon. If there was any consideration that Mrs. Kennedy was a genuine witness, she would have been called to the inquest where she would have provided corroboration for Lewis' claims and thus established a reliable sequence of events.

There is no reason to think that Sarah Lewis, the original witness, lied to anyone.

So just to clarify, I totally agree that Lewis and Kennedy were different people, but I don't accept for a moment that the latter was anything other than a Lewis copycat.

I wouldn't be overly concerned with Sims. He was evidently working from memory and undoubtedly using the same press articles under discussion here.

Sarah Lewis signed a statement to the police that she stayed at the Keylers, thus establishing Keyler as the correct surname. There is no reason to assume any Irish connection here. Kennedy, on the other hand, stated that she stayed with her parents, the Gallaghers, which does not sound anything like "Keyler". There wasn't the room in #2 Millers Court for two couples and two more women; two women, that is, who both woke up at the same time, both heard the cry of murder, mysteriously didn't discuss it together at the time (despite arriving home within half an hour of each other), and who were both accosted by a scary man on Wednesday.

As for genealogical research, the most viable Sarah Lewis candidate was of Polish Jewish background. The fact that she referred to a "husband" is not evidence that the marriage was official or that she must have been using her husband's surname.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

There are almost as many minor obstacles to arguing Lewis & Kennedy were sisters (or separate people) as there are that they were the same person. I would not rule out either possibility, my principle concern is that both their stories are equally valid, whether they were the same person or not.

As for Lewis, she was likely visiting an Irish family, the Echo describes the tenants thus...

"There are about eight houses in the court. The houses are chiefly tenanted by the poorer class of Irish people."
Echo 9, 1888.

As Lewis claims to have been married, her heritage is of no consequence. She may well have married an Irishman, she was apparently a friend of the Keilers/Gallaghers/Kelleghers.
Alternately, the census records show many tenants shared their rooms with unrelated boarders, Lewis doesn't need to be related.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

It would make absolute sense that Lewis and Kennedy were sisters and therefore, the Kennedy surname was used interchangeably for both and was confused in the papers. Of course 'Lewis' was the husband's surname. I think we have some genealogical work to do. Where's Deb when you need her?


More speculation: Lewis can either be a Scottish name meaning, Leodhas the island in the Hebrides, or it could have been Jewish as well. It was a common enough borrowing in the Jewish community. I could see a Hebridean (by descent) married to an Irish woman (by descent) as a very plausible concept, though I'd suggest that marriage between a Calvinist and a Catholic would be tumultuous at times. Yet at the south end of the island of Lewis is the area called Harris which is famously Catholic. Anyway, speculation worth a look at.

Mike

[Marlowe]

Hi Wickerman,

As to Sims possibly hinting that they were sisters?...I don't know, maybe.

I find myself agreeing with you quite often. And, I also like your posting temperment, too. So being that you're obviously a highly intelligent guy, it's only a matter of time before you come 'round to agreeing with me that Lewis and Kennedy were different people! ;-)

Good night Jon :-)

Marlowe

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

But the same article has Kenndy's story and Lewis' testimony. Surely somone would have noted that while Kennedy claims her parents lived in the court and that she knew Kelly at least by sight, Lewis said she was staying by friends and that she did not know Kelly. So, if they were the same person, this would suggest that she lied at least to someone, thereby weakening her value as a witness.

Agreed, she lied to someone, I don't contest that. However, lying about your identity (for any number of personal reasons) does not mean that what she witnesses did not occur.

Ben's argument is that Sarah Lewis/Mrs Kennedy had MPD/DID and that we should only believe her when she was Sarah Lewis... :-)

Oh, I see. I hadn't considered that..
:-)

As to the Sims question...Kennedy said she was with her sister. That's why Sims said 'the Kennedy sisters'.

That was Wednesday though, not Friday morning.
I wondered if Sims was hinting that Lewis & Kennedy were sisters.

Regards, Jon S.

[Marlowe]

Hi Wickerman

But the same article has Kenndy's story and Lewis' testimony. Surely somone would have noted that while Kennedy claims her parents lived in the court and that she knew Kelly at least by sight, Lewis said she was staying by friends and that she did not know Kelly. So, if they were the same person, this would suggest that she lied at least to someone, thereby weakening her value as a witness.

Ben's argument is that Sarah Lewis/Mrs Kennedy had MPD/DID and that we should only believe her when she was Sarah Lewis... :-)

As to the Sims question...Kennedy said she was with her sister. That's why Sims said 'the Kennedy sisters'.

[Wickerman]

Marlowe.
When Ben argues that Kennedy dropped off the map he means she gave no further interviews to the press under the name Kennedy.
This is true, the article to which you refer is a reprint of Kennedy's single statement which preceeds the inquest testimony, which included that of Sarah Lewis.
This week-end summary by the East London Advertiser does not add anything to clarify whether Kennedy & Lewis were the same person or different people.

Interestingly the Echo (Nov. 9) also comments on these women not using their true identity, obviously so that if they leave owing rent the Landlord cannot easily trace them.

"The young woman found murdered this morning was abut 23 years of age, and was only known to Mr. McCarthy as Mary Jane. In this wretched locality, where the common usage - even the ordinary decencies - of life are unrecognised in the "moral" code of the wretched women who lead a life of shame, their very surnames are often unknown to their associates, and even their Christian names are not known to them."

Which might also be one consideration why they give alternate names to the press.

Let me just add a question, what do you think Sims meant by "the Kennedy's", Mrs Kennedy was by herself wasn't she?

Regards, Jon S.

[Marlowe]

Kennedy did not drop off the map. Kennedy and Lewis were BOTH mentioned in the East London Advertiser of November 17. Sims mentions Kennedy as well. Thus...they were not the same person. End of Story.

Marlowe

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

It's the alarming degree of similarity with Lewis' account, coupled with the Star's observation that an "oh murder" account was being parrot by half a dozen women, that establishes Kennedy's role in the Kelly saga as that of one of the "parroters" concerned, as opposed to anything particularly implausible that appeared in her account. Her absence from the inquest also fuels my strong suspicion that Sugden's explanation is the correct one. I'm not sure quite what you mean by "Kennedy's statement to Abberline". There is no evidence that such a document ever existed. Indeed, if Kennedy was the plagiarist I suspect her to have been, it is likely that she fabricated the detail that she was interviewed by the police.

And if Kennedy was Lewis then she did not drop off the map, right?

Right, but if that were the case, we must heed the Lewis version as supplied to the police and inquest, and not the Kennedy version, with its claim to have spotted Kelly at 3.00am and completely different domestic set-up in room #2.

Just noticed your post edit, Lechmere:

I certainly don't buy the line that because something was said in court, even under oath, that it gains some extra magical truthful quality.

But surely you do buy the line that if a witness allegedly says something to the press (in this case seeing Kelly at 3.00), which she mysteriously omits from both her police interview and inquest appearance, it is only prudent to go with the police interview and inquest testimony and conclude that the press detail is false? Similarly, wherever the press and police/inquest versions are at odds, you go with the police/inquest version.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Yes, there were witnesses who we heard from only very briefly, but very few dropped off the map before the inquest, as Kennedy did.

And if Kennedy was Lewis then she did not drop off the map, right?

Jon

[Wickerman]

Loads of people are mentioned only in the press. Inquests necessarily had to be restrictive and limit repetitive witnesses.

Not only that but there were considerably more statements made to the police than those who were chosen to appear under oath. One account numbers witnesses in the fifties (53?).
Kennedy's statement to Abberline only duplicated that given by Lewis (assuming they were not the same person), no need to pay another woman to only make the same statement.

If people choose to disagree and conclude instead that Kennedy and Lewis were one and the same, that’s fair enough, providing they accept Lewis’ version of events, as reported to the police and the inquest, and not Kennedy’s....

I think Tom already asked this, I don't recall him getting a reply, so let me ask you again.
What is it that Kennedy say's which makes you so intent on dismissing her?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Loads of people are mentioned only in the press. Inquests necessarily had to be restrictive and limit repetitive witnesses.

The police would never have excluded a witness on the grounds of too much similarity with another. On the contrary, mutually supportive evidence is particularly crucial as it enables investigators to cement their picture of the night's events.

You may want to make the case that Kennedy parroted Lewis but you can’t claim much provenance for such a theory based on that little remark in the Star.

I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the Lewis-Kennedy similarity is best explained by the Star's observation that some women were parotting an "oh murder" account.

[Lechmere]

Loads of people are mentioned only in the press. Inquests necessarily had to be restrictive and limit repetitive witnesses.
You may want to make the case that Kennedy parroted Lewis but you can’t claim much provenance for such a theory based on that little remark in the Star.

[Rubyretro]

I certainly don't buy the line that because something was said in court, even under oath, that it gains some extra magical truthful quality.

I think that we have to lend it more weight than street gossip or newspaper
accounts. People were arguably more religious then, being closer to death in their daily lives, so that swearing on the Bible before giving testimony
would be alot more serious for them than for us lot of cynics. I think that they would be more impressed and intimitated by the authority of a Court, and have lied less.