Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Ben]

Show me where I said I couldn't find my source.

It was pretty stinkingly obvious, Marlowe.

If you were sincere in wishing to make a useful contribution to the topic being discussed, you would have provided some semblence of evidence for the various claims you were making, rather than just responding with a litany of insults to those inquiring after them.

Because I was actually interested in learning something, I eventually located an article I hadn't seen before - the one printed in the Evening News on 10th November - and directed others to it in the press section here on Casebook.

[Marlowe]

Ben

So in other words...when you wrote "you made several cryptic references to something you think you found once, but couldn't remember much about and couldn't relocate"...you were lying. Correct? I asked you to prove that I said those words and you couldn't. I noticed how you conveniently neglected to mention my saying I didn't have time to post as posting is like being drown into a black hole, but that when I'm free, I would post up some stuff. Further proof I had my source at hand is this exchange:

Simon: Mrs, Kennedy stayed with the Gallaghers

2 minutes later you wrote: Who are the Gallaghers?

5 minutes later I wrote: The Gallaghers were Mrs Kennedy's family.

Remember, ZERO INTEGRITY plus psychosis are not suitable message board qualities, my friend.

So, it's safe to assume, that within hours, you will be claiming the ideas that I introduced here yesterday, as your ideas. Because YOU brought it to casebook posters' attention, right? Ok, whatever. In all honesty, you do need help. And please don't think you are fooling anyone.

[Ben]

So in other words...when you wrote "you made several cryptic references to something you think you found once, but couldn't remember much about and couldn't relocate"...you were lying. Correct?

Why no, Marlowe.

Incorrect, Marlowe.

You are the liar. If you knew about the source all along, and where to locate it, you wouldn't have evaded continuous calls for you to provide your evidence, would you?

But you did.

Then you invented some transparent nonsense about only being able to post the information when you're "free". Please don't insult the readership of Casebook by expecting them to swallow that for one moment. If you were "free" to spend at least an entire evening insulting people on the internet, making disparaging remarks about the intellectual capabilities of young people and all the rest of it, you were certainly free to look up the reference everyone was asking about.

In the event, I located the article referencing "Mrs. Kennedy" and the Gallaghers, and was damnably glad I did, since it wholly reinforced my original observation concerning the likely role of "Kennedy" in the Miller's Court saga.

It's fairly obvious that you'd read the article at some point, but couldn't remember much about it or where to locate it. In which case, there was no dishonour in admitting as much from the outset, but you went the antagonistic route instead, insulting anyone who queried your claims, and tried to claim that you were going to post it soon anyway.

[Marlowe]

Ben,

You won't even mention Simon's name as it relates to finding the article. YOU ARE ONE PIECE OF WORK! damn. This all comes back to integrity, and the fact that you have none.

This is the "black hole" I was worried about. And frankly, it's only my competitive nature that keeps me arguing with someone who is not particularly bright nor sane! Now, I'm sure when you've tried this crap with other posters in the past, they've thrown up their hands in disgust -- but that ain't my style.

So, please show me where is said I couldn't find my source and couldn't remember much about it. You keep saying this as if your lie will eventually become true.

As you recall, but refuse to quote me saying, I said there were at least 12 points of agreement between Hutchinson's description and that of Kennedy's. And why did I say that if I couldn't remember much about the article I was referencing? Come on, if you're going to be a wacko, at least show some intelligence.

I recently worked with a computer artist regarding both Kennedy's statement and Hutchinson's. I was going to post up some stuff he did for me regarding the 12 points of similarity that I kept mentioning. That would surely result in a black hole as far as time goes -- time, which I don't have, but have wasted here with you --one of the most dishonest people I have ever interacted with.

[Ben]

You won't even mention Simon's name as it relates to finding the article.

You're right, my sincere apologies to Simon who did indeed steer me in the right direction with his useful reference to the Gallaghers.

And frankly, it's only my competitive nature that keeps me arguing with someone who is not particularly bright nor sane!

Competetive? If you pathetically imagine you can compete with me on any level, least of all intellectually, then you're even more painfully deluded than I thought. I don't regard vaguely bothersome insects as anything resembling "competition", so you're hardly worthy of my ire. However, if you think I'm going anywhere, you'll end up disappointed. As I'm always at pains to point out to aggressive keyboard-warmongerers who follow people around expecting to scare them off with personal attacks, I'm here forever if necessary. So I'm delighted that it isn't your style to "throw your hands up in disgust". Your ignorance sustains me.

So, please show me where is said I couldn't find my source and couldn't remember much about it. You keep saying this as if your lie will eventually become true.

Simple.

Why didn't you provide it upon repeated request?

Not because you weren't "free". You were "free" to trade insults for an entire evening, and if you're claiming to have had it in front of you - which is as patently bogus as anything else I've heard from you - all you had to do was use the copy and paste facility or provide a URL. But you didn't. It's obvious that you reacquainted yourself with material that you didn't have available until I provided the link, thanks to Simon's useful pointer.

time, which I don't have, but have wasted here with you

But you do.

With every aggression-fuelled post you make, you reinforce the fact that you have plenty of time. You're spending it on me. If you wanted to demonstrate that Hutchinson and Kennedy offered similar descriptions, that would certainly be a more productive way to spend your time, but even then I'd point out the folly of drawing any conclusons from that, since Hutchinson could have used anything in the public doman (i.e. Kennedy's account) to lend superficial credence to his own account.

[Marlowe]

Hey Ben,

You know, I am pretty comfortable letting this end with your last post, because as you know, this has been something of a train wreck for you in many ways.

But that would be wrong of me. I really need to say thanks.

Because as you pointed out so brilliantly and honestly, I only became "reaquainted" with the material that I was just working with just days earlier --- the 12 points if similarity that I introduced here yesterday -- the stuff that my computer artist friend was using -- only after YOU provided the link. So thank you. I couldn't find my printouts, or where I had saved them on my computer and I forgot how to use the Casebook search engine. And that's right, I only vaguely remembered the details of the article that I was working with. I owe it all to you.

I will be happy now to end this. The rest of my day will be spent wondering if you're mostly crazy or mostly stupid. As to dishonesty.....

Bye. and thanks.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

my sincere apologies to Simon who did indeed steer me in the right direction with his useful reference to the Gallaghers.

I beat Simon to it, by one minute Not that I'm crowing - our posts evidently crossed, and Simon went on to elaborate on a different tack to mine. However, in an edit to my post, I suggested an explanation for the Keyler/Gallagher and Lewis/Kennedy confusion which may have been overlooked in the crossfire. See link here.

[Observer]

Hello

Sorry to intrude, havn't been around for a while, and far too many posts have accrued here in this thread for me to read all, but has anyone suggested that it is very wise to be prudent when assesing newspaper reports. Stick to the inquest transcription, would be my advice.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

You're welcome, Marlowe.

Glad to have helped out, and thank you for introducing us, in a roundabout way, to an article wth which I was unfamiliar

I'm very surprised that you couldn't locate the articles again via a Google search if you already had a few salient details to work with. By typing in "Gallagher" and "Miller's Court" into Google, I found the relevent article immediately. Maybe you didn't think of that. Ah well, no worries.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Apologies for overlooking your post midst the tumult. Yours strikes me as a very reasonable explanation!

Cheers,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

has anyone suggested that it is very wise to be prudent when assesing newspaper reports. Stick to the inquest transcription, would be my advice.

I'd advise strongly that more than one source should be consulted, rather than rely on the inquest reports alone. Read the inquest transcription, of course, but compare it with at least two good press reports - press transcripts, that is, as opposed to the homoeopathic summaries sometimes featured in the Times and some other papers. The Daily Telegraph and Morning Advertiser usually give pretty full accounts of the inquests (practically verbatim) and often capture important details and/or nuances left out of the official copies themselves. Even the latter, although clearly important, need to be treated with caution. To take a clear-cut and uncontroversial example relevant to this thread: if we trusted only the inquest trancript, we'd be looking for a Sarah Lewis who lived in "Great Powell Street", which didn't exist. The inquest scribes made errors, as did the pressmen - it's only by running more than two versions against each other that we spot where these potential errors are.

[Wickerman]

Oh no, WM, there was never any suggestion that Sarah Lewis was a widow.

Agreed, I should have worded that differently.

I'm sure many people may have assumed that Barnett was Kelly's husband, but there was never any suggestion that Kelly herself referred to him or conidered him as such.

Well, thats not a fair comment, we have no quotes from Kelly with any bearing on her private life. So we really don't know what she told her closest friends.
Julia VanTurney (sp?) claimed she knew Kelly, she lived in the ground floor room (#1) opposite Kelly, here's what she said at the Inquest:
"I knew the female who occupied No 13 room she said she was a married woman and her name was Kelly."
All I'm saying is that a woman can be regarded as a "widow" (legally), yet still live her life as a married (in common law) woman.

In any case, there is absolutely no possibility that Lewis and Kennedy were sisters as there simply wasn't the living the space for Venturney, Owen, the Gallaghers, the Keylers, Lewis and Kennedy opposite Kelly's room.

Look Ben, VanTurney lived downstairs with Owen in room #1, the Kellehers/Gallahers/Keylers lived upstairs in room #2.
Mrs Kennedy, if not actually Sarah Lewis, was only a visitor, thats likely why she sat up in the chair all night. And, if I am correct that Kennedy and Lewis were different people they both may have sat up all night in chairs.

See if you can get hold of the 1891 census records for Millers Court, see how many families lived in room #5, I think it was 3 families, consisting of 8 people total.

[Sam Flynn]

Gallagher... Keyler... Kellegher... Kennedy

I reckon there's a fairly simple explanation here, Jon, and it something to do with mishearings and incorrect scribbles in journalist's notebooks - caused either by ignorance, earwax, inability to appreciate Irish pronunciation and/or spelling, or a combination of those factors.

What's "Kelly" originally? Isn't it Ceoallaigh, or something like that? - it's a minefield, I tell 'ee

Whatever, I reckon they're all the same family, and that if Mr & Mrs Keyler/Gallagher lived alone in #2, then there were only three people in the room after daughter Sarah crashed out for the night.

[Observer]

I'd advise strongly that more than one source should be consulted, rather than rely on the inquest reports alone. Read the inquest transcription, of course, but compare it with at least two good press reports - press transcripts, that is, as opposed to the homoeopathic summaries sometimes featured in the Times and some other papers.

Which is what seems to be happening here in this thread.

Newspaper transcriptions of the Inquests are invaluable I'll agree Sam, I should have said as much. It was the summeries I was reffering to, that should be taken with a pinch of salt, also the way in which witnesses are not only misquoted, but given free rein to say anything they choose, print and be damned comes to mind.

all the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

It was the summeries I was reffering to, that should be taken with a pinch of salt, also the way in which witnesses are not only misquoted, but given free rein to say anything they choose

It's those summaries that leave out much of what the witnesses actually said (this can often be corroborated by comparing against the extant official transcripts) that cause the biggest problems, Obs.