Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Wickerman]

Indeed, Jon - perhaps he just knew the area and/or understood the Cockney accent.

Hi Gareth.
Initially I thought the same, then I wondered, wouldn't the court recorder have also been cockney?
Maybe Lewis had an accent?, then you posted about Gallaher/Kelleher/Keyler, etc. Then I considered the name "Kennedy", ..ahh, there may be an Irish flavour to this problem..
(Irish names, Irish accents?)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

The Lewis version was technically first.

At the end of her witness statement taken on 9th November she said—

"I Sarah Lewis further said that when in company with another female on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green, a suspicious man accosted her, he carried a black bag."

The Kennedy version appeared in the press on 10th November.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi WM,
...I'm not sure there's any evidence that would indicate that Lewis' statement came before Kennedy's.

True, we only have Lewis's statement taken, presumably at Millers Court before they were all released at 5:30 pm.
Kennedy could hardly have pre-empted that. We are though speaking of "an absence of evidence, which is not the same as, evidence of absence".
We can't say there was no statement from Kennedy, only that none has survived. Quite a few more people lived in Millers Court than those we have statements from.

So, either both statements were taken on the same day in Millers Court, before 5:30 pm, or the press interviewed Kennedy (aka, Lewis) later that day or early on the 10th.
In either case Lewis went on record first (because she was called for the Inquest, which might suggest there never was a pre-inquest statement from Kennedy).

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth.
Initially I thought the same, then I wondered, wouldn't the court recorder have also been cockney?

Not sure, Jon. Wouldn't some of them have been more of the "clerical" (as in "clerkly", rather than clergy!) class? Trainees in the judiciary, and hence of a higher class still? I genuinely don't know, and would be interested to find out.

BTW, I was very familiar with the London ("Cockney") accent - having lived in London (Norf and Sarf) for a decade, but that didn't stop me from completely misunderstanding my mate, who often talked about going "dahn" to Bewl Water in Kent. It must have been the best part of a year before I found out that he was referring to "Bewl" and not "Bill" or "Beal", all of which were pronounced something like "Beeooouw" by the natives.

[Wickerman]

....
I would be interested to learn how those statements were taken, whether at the police station, which I doubt, or within Millers Court itself.

Just off on a tangent here..
Julia Venturney, in her pre-inquest statement, I think taken by Abberline, included this line in her statement:
"I have known the person occupying No 13 room opposite mine for about 4 months. I knew the man who I saw downstairs (Joe Barnett) he is called Joe.."

Because Venturney lived in the ground floor room this statement was not taken in her room. So, I am intrigued where the statements were taken, she appears to have been upstairs somewhere.

...pondering the minutiae..

[Chava]

I have real concerns about counting too much on the press reports of the case. The journalists were all over the area, and eager to buy anyone a drink who might be able to give them some kind of story. In that situation, I would expect a ton of misinformation and exaggeration: 'Oh yes! I remember it well! It was 5 am and I heard a woman scream 'oh murder! Little did I know it was Mary Jane's last words. What? It was 3.00? Oh, right! I remember it well. It was 3 am...' Chinese whispers--or as we called it 'broken telephone'--would be the least of the problems.

The cry of 'oh, murder' seems to have been blown entirely out of proportion by these 'witnesses'. Prater certainly heard it, and I believe Lewis heard it. But I sincerely doubt it came from 13 Millers Court. Earlier murders in this series produced no sound at all. Even supposing--as I do--that this murder may not have been part of the Ripper murders, I doubt Kelly would have had the time or the ability to do anything other than scream. 'Oh, murder!' is a long and very articulate thing to say in these circumstances while fighting for one's life.

I'm much more interested in Cox's and Prater's entirely different experiences of Kelly that night. Cox has her drunk and singing for a hell of a long time. Prater doesn't see or hear a thing. Yet both are in close proximity to her and each other.

[Sam Flynn]

I have real concerns about counting too much on the press reports of the case. The journalists were all over the area, and eager to buy anyone a drink who might be able to give them some kind of story. In that situation, I would expect a ton of misinformation and exaggeration.

True enough - especially of the early "on the street" press reports, which is why it's vital always to read more than two press accounts wherever possible. The truth, inasmuch as it can ever be known, will lie somewhere between them.

"Street reportage" aside, it has to be reiterated that some of the press inquest transcripts are extremely valuable in filling in details omitted by the official records and/or other newspapers.

[DVV]

Lewis and Hutch

If Lewis is to be believed, Hutch was actually loitering in Miller's Court between 2 and 3.
Is Hutch is to be believed, Lewis did not enter Millers Court at this time, and then... could not have seen... Hutch...

His presence on the spot was the only thing, in Hutch's story, that was corroborated.
But Hutch saw many things, except the only person who saw him.
Being almost impossible for him to have missed Lewis (she was not passing by, she went into a room opposite Mary's), the question would be:
Why didn't Hutch say he saw a woman entering Miller's Court around 2'30?

[Ben]

Good question, David.

My guess is that Hutchinson was wary of making it look too obvious that Lewis' evidence provided the reason behind his decision to come forward and offer his account when he did. Nathanial Code introduced himself to the police as a witness, but apparently did not mention the neighbour who had spotted (and thus incriminated) him for the same reason. Nor did John Armstrong mention the witnesses who had seen him.

Either that or Hutchinson did mention Lewis, but the reference wasn't mentioned in the statement as it didn't pertain directly to the murder. Or he simply wasn't asked about it.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If it boils down to Cox v Prater and who if any, were telling the truth about events that fateful night.. here is my view.
Cox claims she followed Mjk and Blotchy man along Dorset street and was close to them as they arrived at number 13, she then describes Mr Blotchy, and him, carrying a quart of ale, and remembers Kelly saying 'Goodnight' I am going for a song.
She apparently told her neice some years later a far different story, a description of a real 'Toff', she observed the whole scene whilst standing by her front door[ waiting for her man to come home from the pub] she heard the murdered woman shout out' All right Luv, dont pull me along'.
Clearly major differences, and spoken by a person who at the very least likes to impress a audience.
And then to Prater.
What impresses me about her Press reports is she adds witnesses to them and uses believable content, for eg...she states that she met Mjk at the corner of the court round 9pm on the eve of the 8th' She came down the court, she was wearing a hat , and bonnet' [ i do not own any] she then parted with the words Goodnight my pretty' [ the way she used to address me].
She them says chatted to McCarthy, and said 'If my young man comes along tell him I have gone up'
She also involves her cat 'Diddles' in her becoming awake just before she heard the sound 'Oh murder' she also gave a verbal interpretation at the inquest, and describes it as 'Awaken with nightmare'.
I can only make a personal judgement on the two, and I very much favour Mrs Prater as being more reliable.
Regards Richard.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

You see this is where you and I will never see eye to eye. If you agree with David that it would have been nigh on impossible for the ripper (in the form of Hutch) not to have seen Lewis as he loitered, then you have to explain why he went ahead anyway and butchered a woman in that court on that very night. How confident could he have been, at the time, that this woman hadn't clocked him, or at least not closely enough to cause him any grief, if he was prompted to come forward after the event by a strong belief that she had not only seen him, done that and bought the basic grief-causing T-shirt to wear at the inquest, but could well have provided the police with extras about her sighting of him that they were now gaily suppressing just like they did when Lawende clocked him with Kate six weeks previously?

It just doesn't compute unless the ripper was cautious in the extreme and paid meticulous attention to detail one minute (eg when making a mental note that details about Lawende's sighting of him were initially held back, and again when he realised that the same may well have happened with Lewis and took the precautionary measure of inventing his own detailed witness account), but totally reckless and unobservant to the point of absurdity the next (ie when he actually needed to put into practice the lesson from Lawende and be aware of who might be watching him and how closely, as he was watching the court himself for his next killing opportunity.

The ripper doesn't strike me as a man who, by November 9th, has the belt and braces that he didn't have on double event night, but forgets to go out in them, and when he's caught with his pants falling down in Miller's Court is forced to go to the cops wearing a new set.

Hi WM,

...Lewis mentioned a "companion" rather than a sister, and referred to the "Keylers" (rather than the Gallaghers or "my parents"), whilst Kennedy described her sister as a "widow", which would be unusual if the sister was currently married (Common-law or conventional)...

I thought Wickerman (hi Jon! ) was making the point that "widow" was often used as a euphemism by a friend or family member (or by oneself, if MJK invented her hubby killed in a mining disaster, for example) to give some respectability to a woman who was not legally married (and was either someone's common law wife or girlfriend, or was having more casual relationships - ie not a virginal spinster as such) by suggesting she had been in the past. Unless there is actual evidence that Sarah Lewis was legally married I can certainly imagine why a sister might prefer to describe her as a widow. Sarah herself may have done so at one time or another, whether it was true or not.

Love,

Caz
X

[Celesta]

Hello David and Ben,

It doesn't make much sense that the police wouldn't have asked Hutch about Lewis. Perhaps, like Ben said, his reference to her wasn't mentioned in the report. Yet that doesn't seem right either. They were keenly aware of her statement, so surely the first thing they would have wanted to know was whether he saw her, if to do nothing more than to establish, more precisely, the time both Hutch and Lewis were there.

I've wondered if the Ripper had actually trailed Lewis to Miller's Ct. The fact that Hutch didn't even see Lewis doesn't dissuade me from that possibility. Or if the Ripper was out there, he may have spotted Prater and trailed her into the Court. Nobody would've have seen that either.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

You see this is where you and I will never see eye to eye. If you agree with David that it would have been nigh on impossible for the ripper (in the form of Hutch) not to have seen Lewis as he loitered, then you have to explain why he went ahead anyway and butchered a woman in that court on that very night.

For the same reason that the killer did so on previous occasions, presumably. Take the man seen by Lawende, for example; observed at relatively close quarters by three witnessses in the company of his victim, and yet he was almost certainly responsible for Eddowes' brutal murder a few minutes thereafter. The same was evidently true of the individual seen by Elizabeth Long, to say nothing of Schwartz' broadshouldered man who was actually seen physically manhandling the victim.

I accept your point, but can't see how it's Hutch-specific. Whatever his identity, the killer was clearly not one to abort his intended mission purely on the grounds that he'd been seen by a witness. Why is anyone's guess, but it may reasonably surmise that his urges had passed the point of no-return by that stage. That doesn't mean he couldn't rise to new challenges and alter his tactics as the police altered theirs.

You ask how confident Hutchinson could have been that he hadn't been clocked at close quarters, and I'd say that he couldn't have been remotely confident - that's precisely the point. Nothing breeds anxiety more than uncertainty, and by that stage, that anxiety could only have been heightened by the recently enforced tactic of withholding witness descriptions. Even if that didn't happen with Lewis' evidence, a vague description doesn't necessarily equate to a vague sighting. It's obviously more than possible to get a good sighting of something without being able to describe it (or him) very well. The killer would have understood this.

If Hutchinson went to Miller's Court with the intention of murdering Mary Kelly after a period of prior surveillance, it can't be argued that he was "wreckless" to continue after the potential close-shave with Lewis. Not without knowing the extent of his inner compulsion at that stage.

I thought Wickerman (hi Jon! ) was making the point that "widow" was often used as a euphemism by a friend or family member (or by oneself, if MJK invented her hubby killed in a mining disaster, for example) to give some respectability to a woman who was not legally married

Ah, but is that really the case though, Caz?

I'd be very surprised indeed.

Surely if the woman perceived some stigma in not being legally married, surely it was much simpler to describe herself as "single", rather than inventing a dead "legal" husband? Sarah Lewis simply mentioned a husband, without specifying whether it was legal or not. Who was going to care?

Either way, the point is rather moot, since Kennedy and Lewis cannot have been sisters, not without conjuring up a set of wildly implausible scenarios and coincidences.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Celesta,

If you're correct in your belief that Hutchinson was quizzed about Sarah Lewis, then we're still left in the frustating position of not knowing what answer he gave - yea, nay, or can't remember (!). The total absence of detail in that regard may signify that either he wasn't quizzed along those lines, or he was and we don't know the answer.

Best regards,
Ben

[Celesta]

True, Ben. I think it would've been very remiss on the part of the cops not to ask him, but we don't know if they did or didn't.

If he knew he was seen, what's the likelihood that he would have assumed she would know him again later? I believe he was either near or under the street lamp in front of Crossingham's but still... That's not much light. She probably couldn't have been sure she would recognize him, but he couldn't have been sure of that. One type of personality would've taken his chances and not gone to the police. Hutch was the other kind of personality. The tension got to him.