Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Observer]

I'd agree with that Sam

all the best

Observer

[Wickerman]

Evenetually, I located the source which served to reinforce my original observation; either Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were one and the same, or she was parrotting Sarah Lewis after hearing her testimony as described by a Star reporter on 10th November.

I couldn't remember who suggested this (above), I just wanted to point out that it is the testimony of Sarah Lewis which is the principal (official) story, whereas Marlowe appears to use the press interview with Mrs Kennedy.

According to the Times, Nov. 12th, Insp. Abberline did interview a "girl named Kennedy", so presumably he must have taken a statement from her.
This is interesting because, although no such statement has survived, we do know that Abberline also interviewed Sarah Lewis, this pre-inquest statement did survive (Ref. MJ/SPC, NE1888, Box 3, Case Paper 19).

We might wonder why the Times reporter would identify the interviewee as "Kennedy", yet Abberline wrote "Sarah Lewis" at the head of the statement, unless we are talking about two different people.

It could be said that Abberline saw that both testimonies were near enough identical so only one need be called at the Inquest. Perhaps he chose the most lucid testimony.

What also must be born in mind is that we learn that the police closed off Millers Court and kept everyone within until they had searched all the premises AND taken statements from ALL those present. The court was opened again about 5:30 pm on that same day, the 9th.

That being the case I don't understand how anyone can claim that one of the visitors was "chinese whispering" a story that had not yet hit the press!

All the residents and visitors were detained until they told their stories, it is those individual stories, one by Mrs Kennedy, the other by Mrs Lewis, that originated at this very moment.
Chinese Whispering doesn't even come into it..

[Ben]

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

Right, but the chances of her being referred to as a "widow" if she was currently married were incredibly remote, WM. If the woman in question had a conventional or a common-law husband, she was married, and likely to be referred to as such. If she was on her second husband and was "widowed" before that, it wouldn't ennervate the fact that she was now married, and I doubt very much that she'd still be referred to as a widow.

And, if I am correct that Kennedy and Lewis were different people they both may have sat up all night in chairs.

Yes, but we're still left with the absurdly unlikely "coincidence" of two seperate entities both doing pretty much precisely the same thing on precisely the same night AND the previous Wednesday, and hearing and seeing the same things on both occasions. Most implausible. The name given for the couple with whom Lewis stayed was Keyler, not Gallagher, and if it is to be argued that the Keylers were the Gallaghers, it certainly follows that Kennedy could well be Lewis.

The only credible options, to my mind, are as follows:

#1 Lewis and Kennedy were one and the same.

#2 Kennedy was trying to pass of Sarah Lewis' account as her own.

The first makes eminent sense, and the latter has external support from two sources; the fact that Mrs. Kennedy didn't appear at the inquest, and the fact that certain women were reported to have been passing off genuine "Oh Murder" accounts off as their own.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Your Keyler/Gallagher phonic argument is very persuasive. I think you're right that Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy were one and the same woman, all of which makes matters even more intriguing.

The 'accosted in Bethnal Green' story first appeared in Sarah Lewis' original witness statement, taken on 9th November, in which "between 2 and 3 o’clock this morning" she saw 'Mister Wideawake' talking to a female ['talking to a female' crossed out] by the lodging house opposite Millers Court.

The Kennedy 'accosted in Bethnal Green' version appeared next, on 10th November, in which she saw Kelly outside the Britannia at 3.00 am and nobody outside the lodging house.

But in the second Sarah Lewis version at the inquest, on 12th November, events moved back half an hour. At 2.30 am ["I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock"] Kelly had become an anonymous female standing near the Britannia, and Mister Wideawake was on his own.

And after the inquest along came GH who said in effect that 'Mrs Kennedy' couldn't have seen Kelly at 3.00 am because by that time she had been cooched up with Mister Astrakhan for forty five minutes.

Oh what a tangled web . . .

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

It could be said that Abberline saw that both testimonies were near enough identical so only one need be called at the Inquest. Perhaps he chose the most lucid testimony.

Absolutely no way, WM.

If Mrs. Kennedy's version of events was considered a genuine account of the night of 9th November, she'd be called to appear at the inquest. The fact that their accounts are pretty much identical ought to give us pause for consideration, if not outright suspicion. Is it remotely plausible that two independent witnesses would mirror one an other's actions to such an absurdly unlikely extent, with neither one mentioning the other? If Mrs. K was a seperate witness, she'd also be inavluable as a means of consolidating other accounts AND Kelly's likely time of death ("Oh Murder" etc).

We might wonder why the Times reporter would identify the interviewee as "Kennedy", yet Abberline wrote "Sarah Lewis" at the head of the statement, unless we are talking about two different people.

If they were the same person, it was because she didn't divulge her true identity to the press, but was obliged to do so when communicating with the police. If they were different people, it was because Mrs. Kennedy was parrotting someone else; a true witnes; the witness who appeared at the inquest - Sarah Lewis.

That being the case I don't understand how anyone can claim that one of the visitors was "chinese whispering" a story that had not yet hit the press!

They would have communicated with eachother, WM. Genuine witness talks to gossiper. Gossiper picks up the relevent details. Gossiper claims ownership of those details and tries to pass it off as her own experience, mangling it somewhat in the process, in the manner described by a reporter from the Star newspaper. For whatever it may be worth, it is clear from page 4 of The Complete History of Jack the Ripper that Philip Sugden subscribes to the same view.

Or, we go with the only other credible alternative that doesn't entail a ridculous level of coincidence; Lewis and Kennedy were one and the same. I can't see how any other alternative could be considered anything other than unutterably outlandish.

[Wickerman]

....The fact that their accounts are pretty much identical ought to give us pause for consideration, if not outright suspicion. Is it remotely plausible that two independent witnesses would mirror one an other's actions to such an absurdly unlikely extent, with neither one mentioning the other? If Mrs. K was a seperate witness, she'd also be inavluable as a means of consolidating other accounts AND Kelly's likely time of death ("Oh Murder" etc).

I have not disagreed with them being one and the same, I always thought this but I am intrigued by the mention by Mrs Kennedy of her sister being witness to the Wednesday night fiasco. And the possibility that she and her sister went everywhere together.
To my mind there are only two possibilities, the obvious and traditional one that they are indeed the same person, or, the alternate possibility that they are close sisters.
Toss out the chinese whispering theory, not in this case, there's way too much to remember.

[Ben]

Just as an addendum, I ought to mention that Elizabeth Long was referred to in other accounts as Elizabeth Darrell, lending potential weight to Gareth's "same person, different name" hypothesis.

[Ben]

Hi WM,

I cannot responsibly toss out the "Chinese Whispers" theory when we know for a fact that a reporter from The Star specifically mentioned that certain women were doing precisely that in relation to the "Oh Murder" account. There was only the bare essentials to remember, and they were mangled to a significant extent. Certain tell-tale clues arise; for example, while Lewis is fairly matter-of-fact in her description, "Kennedy" is inclined towards sensationalism, with references to a "glare" in the man's eyes and other similar embellishments.

Regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Just as an addendum, I ought to mention that Elizabeth Long was referred to in other accounts as Elizabeth Darrell, lending potential weight to Gareth's "same person, different name" hypothesis.

That is not the only case where we have various verisons of one persons surname or first name Ben, you have support for that principle elsewhere...including Mary Jane being referred to as "Lizzie", and Barnett as Mr Kelly.

To try and match the stories is impossible to confirm these two are one, but to know that all through the early reporting and beyond, "facts" such as names, locations or activities were slightly or greatly abused, and this matter with Sarah belongs in that realm...one that must be satisfied by reason and understanding of the integrity of sources, not reliance on quotes or reports that we know could be corrupt.

You have been on the right side pal. Although they are not the same stories, they were based on the same stories.

All the best Ben.

[Marlowe]

I know it has nothing to do with what's currently being debated, but Kennedy makes a very important observation regarding the man's walk -- she said he had an extremely "awkward gait" -- this will play a key role in the solution to the case -- which I will be presenting, of course. :0

Marlowe

[Ben]

You're quite right, Mike. This wouldn't be the only example of more than one name applying to one identity.

All the best!

Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi WM,
I cannot responsibly toss out the "Chinese Whispers" theory when we know for a fact that a reporter from The Star specifically mentioned that certain women were doing precisely that in relation to the "Oh Murder" account.

Yes but Ben, it's overkill. The tendency for someone to grab a little bit of the limelight does not extent to coming to Millers court from the same direction, at the same time, to stay with the same people (at the same address), staying up all night in a chair, and then recalling the same confrontation on Wednesday night, a confrontation I might add that just happens to involve two women.
No, absolutely not!

These women actually experienced precisely what they recounted, or we are talking about one woman with two names.
Seeking a bit of the limelight does not extend to impersonating another witness. Any police official would see through that in an instant.
You must give the police more credit than that.

[Ben]

Seeking a bit of the limelight does not extend to impersonating another witness. Any police official would see through that in an instant.

With respect though, WM, it's not a matter of opinion as to whether witnesses were borrowing genuine accounts and passing them off as their own. We have actual reports of it happening. Not only that, but the reporter specifically singled out an "Oh Murder" account as the one being parrotted. Since there's no evidence of Mrs. Prater's evidence appearing under a different name, it must have been Lewis' evidence that was being regurgitated, and since no other woman than Mrs. Kennedy gave a near-identical account to Lewis, it must regarded as a near-certainty that Mrs. Kennedy was one of the women the reporter was talking about.

That's the option I go with because it has strong evidential support from another source, but I also recognize the merit in the suggestion that they may have been the same women. That also makes sense, since other witnesses did the same thing.

The only option I don't recognize any merit in is one that has two seperate women deciding, independently, to do precisely the same thing at almost precisely the same time on two nights, with neither one mentioning the other and only one being called to the inquest. Sarah Lewis referred to a "companion" in the Bethnal Green encounter, not a sister, and she didn't refer to the "Keylers" as her parents.

As for giving police credit, I do. The fact that Kennedy did not appear at the inquest would, again, dovetail nicely with the first two options and not the third. Either they discovered the same tacitc the Star reporter noticed with regard to duplicate witness accounts, or they realized Lewis and Kennedy were the same person.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

This is bewildering. If we accept that Lewis and Kennedy were one and the same, it seems that this woman gave interwiews to varying newspapers under different names.

That makes no sense.

If, on the other hand, there were one Sarah Lewis and one Mrs Kennedy, it seems that the latter did not just attract attention to herself by stating that she had heard the "Oh murder!" cry - she in fact copied Lewis´testimony in each detail, sleeping in a chair and all!

That makes no sense either.

That leaves us with the possibility that there were two women doing the exact same things at the exact same spots, meeting the exact same people on the exact same night.

Same thing here: it makes no sense.

I have a sneaking feeling that something is being overlooked here, somehow.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish!

If there was an incentive behind Mrs. Kennedy "borrowing" the other details from Lewis' original account, it may have been to avoid being "caught out" by a reporter quizzing her on other aspects relating to her "experience" besides the Murder cry.

Best regards,
Ben