Who did Sarah See?

[Malcolm X]

.
As for greeting A Man like an old friend -some people are simply warm and
open to strangers. It seems like the sort of attribute that a sucessful
prostitute would cultivate..like shopkeepers or sales reps....and a trait seemingly shared by at least Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes.

.

a bunch of women, you mean ?[/QUOTE]

sorry you're way wrong, you're turning a blind eye to what these women were really like back in the slums of victorian London, they lived in a hell hole.

these are definitelly not ``successful prostitutes`` because these would be working up the WEST END, living in their own posh houses and mixing with the middle to upper classes, clean, tidy and well spoken, these types are more like paid Mistresses, paid also to accompany rich gents to the theatre etc..in a horse and carriage!

in stark comparison, the area of Whitechapel is full of down and outs, EDDOWES and STRIDE are nothing more than ``HAGS``, they are repulsive to behold, as are most of the women down Dorset st, i would not touch any one of these with a 10ft bargepole and i doubt that you would too..... they would have stunk to high heaven!

i'm sorry that this sounds so awfall from me, but just look at the squalid conditions that they lived in.... GOOGLE it now, these are the dregs of Victorian society.... FACT, they are the Georgian version of the ``underclass``.

MJK is only attractive ( but i doubt she was compared to a modern woman) because she was young, she would still have smelt and needed a bloody good bath .

but it is not their fault that they were like this, it's just the way life was back then, you can see how bad they looked in the photos here/ plus the photos of Dorset st etc.

finally LA DE DA is not dressed as a rich gent, he's dressed quite vulgar, like a get rich quick spiv, the victorians had strict codes of etiquette, dress and behaviour, he would not be allowed into a retaurant up the WEST END looking like that and definitely not MJK either....especially her, even if she dressed smartly, because as soon as she opened her mouth and started talking, she'd attract horrified gasps and side long glances from the snobby cows on the neighbouring tables...... a waiter would come over and ask them to leave, it is also highly unlikely that either of these two even knew which of the many knives and folks that they were supposed to eat with etc, let alone how to order food/ wine etc.

not knowing any of this etiquette, would be noticed instantly and frowned upon, thus these two would be shown the ``tradesman entrance`` and confined to 3rd class on board Titanic !

finally, the highlight of MJKs weekend was to get blind drunk, row with JOE, puke up in the gutter and to show it to her other neighbours down millers court.......

i rest my case for the defence !

[Malcolm X]

Ben, once again I need to point out to you that the Star article is not written from our point of view, it is written from the point of view of not knowing about Sarah Lewis.

We know about Sarah Lewis, but on the 10th the Star did not. Therefore Lewis needs to be dropped from your equation.

Kennedy is the Star's 'original' source, that is what they say, and half-a-dozen women are parroting Kennedy.

That is what the article tell's us.

Regards, Jon S.

i dont know either way yet and i wont reveal anything until Ben is back on form in febuary time, i need to really suss out all of this, but the bullshit seems to be comming from Kennedy.

whatever the case, none of this stuff seems to effect GH at all... i think!

[Wickerman]

i dont know either way yet and i wont reveal anything until Ben is back on form in febuary time, i need to really suss out all of this, but the bullshit seems to be comming from Kennedy.

whatever the case, none of this stuff seems to effect GH at all... i think!

Kennedy's observations are of little importance if we assume Sarah Lewis was a different person.

The possibility exists that Sarah Lewis gave the name Kennedy to the press because she still wanted to tell her story. Yet still as Kennedy, she keeps quiet about what she saw while walking up Millers Court.
She makes no mention of anyone 'on watch' (Hutchinson?), or the couple walking up the passage. In fact Kennedy keeps quiet about critical details.

Likewise Prater keeps quiet about the cry of "oh, murder", until the inquest.
The suggestion is that the police had requested some witnesses to keep quiet about certain details, but we don't know which witnesses nor what details.

The singular most important snippet of information coming from Kennedy is this line:

"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning..."

And this was published on the evening of the 10th, none of the dailies carried that line naming Kelly as one of the women.
Though we don't know who made that determination so early after the murder and before the inquest, was it the reporter, or did Kennedy know Kelly by sight? We have no answer to that question.

Apart from that line, there is nothing important in Kennedy's statement beyond the "murder" cry.

Regards, Jon

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I’m quite aware that the Star had not heard of Sarah Lewis on the 10th November. My point was that even if the reporter did not correctly identify the individual roles, they were clearly aware of what was going on, i.e. that a genuine witness was having her account parroted by other women. We are in a perfect position to identify those roles by a simple process of elimination. The Lewis and Kennedy accounts are the only examples of two Kelly-related accounts mirroring one another with near exactitude, tying in precisely with the reporter’s observation about an account being copied, and since Lewis was unquestionably the original source, that only leaves the non-inquest-attending Kennedy, who we stop hearing from anywhere before the inquest, as one of the women who tried to pass off Lewis’ account as her own.

For Kennedy to be the original source, Lewis must be the copycat, which is nigh on impossible.

While it is possible that Kennedy and Lewis were the same person, it the less plausible explanation because it would make an obvious nonsense of the Star’s report (which is explained perfectly by the “Kennedy copying Lewis” scenario). Moreover, it is scarcely credible that Lewis should mention seeing Kelly out and about at 3.00am to the press, but completely withhold this somewhat crucial detail from both the police and the inquest. Either the reporter invented it, or much more likely, Kennedy wanted to spice up an account she had heard about from another woman (Lewis).

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

yea, i cant really make a serious comment till early next year, after i've studied all this stuff

until then i can only speculate about this

1..... i have seen nothing that suggests that GH was not there

2..... i have seen nothing that suggests that someone else was seen between 2 and 3am

3.....Kennedy needs the most studying of all, but i also need to check all these so called ``wannabe ripper suspects``..... i.e those idiots carrying black bags etc !

4....I dont think that S.LEWIS is Kennedy, more like Kenedy is simply lieing and thus got her times wrong, i.e she should have said 2am, these bunch of women would get ripped apart in a modern court, but i need to study all of this far more

i very much doubt that JTR would get someone like GH to cover his arse or to provide an Alibi etc, just in case GH breaks down during interrogation, it's far more likely that GH is either a close friend already, or JTR's a lone wolf.

NOW THEN, if this is some sort of colaboration then BLOTCHY FACE is definitely a friend of GH, because GH is needed for one reason only, `` to provide evidence that MJK went out again and thus was still alive, AFTER BLOTCHY FACE LEFT.

this means that these two idiots are probably BROAD SHOULDERS and Pipeman and one of these is probably Sailor boy too

BUT..... my guess is that JTR doesn't give a damn about being seen....AT ALL, therefore it's more than likely that GH was working alone.

.

[Lechmere]

Ben
When you say:
“My point was that even if the reporter did not correctly identify the individual roles, they were clearly aware of what was going on, i.e. that a genuine witness was having her account parroted by other women.”

I presume you refer to this passage from the Star of 10th November:

“The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are a hundred highly circumstantial stories, which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.”

If this is the passage that you rely on to substantiate your claim that Kennedy was parroting Lewis and that Kennedy’s tale is the only potential parrot story in a newspaper – then may I point out that the Star did not claim that any of these stories were repeated in any newspaper.
The Star merely reported that false stories were being circulated and repeated on the street. They did not suggest that any single one of these example of street gossip had been swallowed by any of their rivals. Indeed street gossip is constant feature of urban dwelling.

[Steven Russell]

Since The Star was set up as an anti-establishment paper and one which championed the cause of the common people, this seems like a very honest piece of reporting to me as it goes against the house agenda.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Wickerman]

...The Star merely reported that false stories were being circulated and repeated on the street.

Actually Lechmere, not even "stories" (meaning a sequence of events), the Star only concerns its reader with false claims of hearing a cry of "murder", and the "time" which they heard it.

The Star is not suggesting those "half-dozen" women spread stories about "Wednesday night", or "people outside the Britannia", nor "settling in at the house in Millers Court", or any other details related by Mrs Kennedy.

The most important detail to be taken from the Star is that Mrs Kennedy is the original source in so far as the Star is concerned, and not a 'parroter' as claimed by Ben.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

True but in using the word stories I was trying to be generous in my interpretation to Ben's viewpoint!

[Wickerman]

... but the bullshit seems to be comming from Kennedy.

The most telling detail coming from Kennedy is the fact she gives her destination that night as the same house that Sarah Lewis was visiting.
Though this factor is overlooked it does suggest Kennedy was more honest than stupid.

Just to get my name in the spotlight I might suggest to the press that I also witnessed the car crash outside your house, but I will naturally merge the lie into a story that I was passing the scene at the time, that I was coming from or going to somewhere.
If I was to say that I saw the accident because it happened directly outside "my" house (being your house), the game is up!

No-one is going to be that stupid, especially to the press and police.

The differences between the Kennedy story & that of Sarah Lewis can be readily accounted for. Putting aside all kinds of conspiracy theories the most straighforward explanation is that they were the same woman.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“then may I point out that the Star did not claim that any of these stories were repeated in any newspaper”

It doesn’t make a scrap of difference, Lechmere. The striking similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts informs us immediately that the phenomenon described by the Star – that of other bogus witnesses parroting an “oh murder” story – not only happened, but made the papers. Otherwise, we’re left with another one of those absurd “coincidences” that some people seem hell bent on pretending to find plausible. Mrs. Kennedy’s own “oh murder” account was both suspiciously similar to Lewis’ (albeit incorporating a sighting of Kelly herself!) and dropped before the inquest, tying in precisely with the Star’s observation. The only error they appeared to have made was their attempt to identify the original source, which was unquestionably Sarah Lewis, who definitely stayed opposite Kelly on the night of the murder, was interviewed by the police, and was called to the inquest...and not Kennedy.

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. After all, the witness in question cannot have returned at 2:30 and 3.00am simultaneously, nor could she have stayed with the Keylers AND the "Gallaghers". And the idea that a hypothetical Lewis/Kennedy saw Kelly at 3.00am should logically be dismissed as preposterous. I hope I won’t need to explain why.

Incidentally, and as much as I appreciate the gesture, your “generosity” to my view is not necessary since it stands on considerably firmer ground that all other Kennedy/Lewis-related explanations. It didn’t even originate with me. Philip Sugden was the first to suggest it in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, and I doubt very much that anything in this thread would prompt him to revise that view.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

If I was to say that I saw the accident because it happened directly outside "my" house (being your house), the game is up!

But the game was "up" in Kennedy's case, Jon, which was why we never hear from her again after those early press reports on the Kelly murder. I'm afraid it's a fallacy to argue that the more transparent the lie, the greater the chance of the person telling the truth. It's akin to saying that because no forger would be "stupid" enough not to imitate Maybrick's handwriting, the diary cannot have been a forgery at all. In this case, I would argue that Kennedy's decision to "place" herself in the house opposite the crime scene must have been a contributory factor in her swift discrediting.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben
Throughout this case there are loads of witnesses we hear of once and don't hear of again. That's just how it is.
And I am afraid it does make a big difference - there is no evidence that it was reported anywhere that any newspaper picked up false street parrotted stories. And I would suggest that if Kennedy equals Lewis (and I am not totally sure) then all of here statements not matter where she made them should be taken into account.
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.

[Ben]

Lechmere,

The degree of similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts more than establishes that the practice of "parotted stories" occurred exactly as the Star reporter described, even down to the detail that it was women who copied from an "oh murder" account. Yes, there were witnesses who we heard from only very briefly, but very few dropped off the map before the inquest, as Kennedy did.

[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.