Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

This is a bizarre few pages.....but to add to it, If I recall isnt the address if the Keylers #1 or 2 Millers Court? That would place them at the opposite end of the courtyard, not opposite Marys room. I believe Julia was in one of the rooms opposite Marys.

Best regards all.

ps....I do believe that Kennedy and Lewis are the same witness.

[Marlowe]

Hi Simon,

Notice though, that Kennedy says one of the women she didn't know, while the other was poorly clad and had no head gear...in other words she didn't say she didn't know both women. And as we now know, Kelly was described as being poorly clad, without head gear by others who last saw her. So I would say that's another "YES". ;-)

Marlowe

[DVV]

Sam, title much appreciated (laugh too much to have my dinner).

[Simon Wood]

Hi, Marlowe,

Evening News, 10th November 1888—

"Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she [Mrs Kennedy] saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before."

That would be a "yes".

St. James Gazette, 10 November 1888—

PROBABLE TIME OF THE MURDER
A representative of the Press Association has interviewed a woman named Kennedy. who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murder was committed. Her statement is as follows:-

About three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house, which is situated immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a woman poorly clad, without any headgear......

[MICROFILM MISSING SECTION].

As this is an agency story, we can fill in the missing section from The Daily News, 12th November 1888—

" . . . without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming?" whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go.

" . . . many persons who have been interviewed state that the unfortunate woman never left the house at 26 Dorset street, after she entered it on Thursday midnight, while, on the other hand, others, who declare that they were companions of the deceased and knew her well, state that she came out of her house at eight o'clock on Friday morning for provisions; and, furthermore, that they were drinking with her in a local tavern at ten o'clock on the same morning as her mutilated body was found at eleven."

And that would be a "no" or a possible "maybe".

From the foregoing it's impossible to tell if Mrs Kennedy saw Kelly.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Different persons, huh?

Sarah Lewis stayed at the Keylers and Kennedy stayed with her parents, the Gallaghers.

What's your response to that? Same person, huh?

London Evening News, 10th November 1888

"Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before."

Unless "both" pairs of married tenants of the tenement immediately opposite Mary Kelly's room had a daughter just happen to visit at a late hour, I'd say that "Gallagher" was a corruption/mis-spelling of "Keyler" (or vice versa) and that they were the parents of "Mrs Kennedy/Lewis", née Gallagher/Keyler. Or "Kelsey" (struck out) if you read the inquest transcript.

Edit: I'll bet their real name was "Kellagher"... variously spelt "Kelleher", "Kellaher", "Killaher" and "Keliher"... and variously pronounced "Kellyher", "Kaylaher", "Kayler" and "Keeler"... and easily confused with (the more familiar?) "Gallagher".

[DVV]

Marlowe,
You mean the article that Ben put under your notice?
Where should be the problem? As posted above, it is conflicting the more precise Daily News and all others articles dealing about Mrs Kennedy.
Now answer this question, if you please: do you seriously think that Kennedy and Lewis did have a X-Files experience, in November 1888?

[Marlowe]

David

People that know this case very well know exactly what I mean about the poorly clad woman with no head gear. I don't want to sound nasty, but I feel I'm of wasting my time with you. (with Ben, on the other hand, I've already wasted months ;-)

Now, answer my question please: Does Kennedy, in The Evening News, say she saw Mary Kelly with the man who approached her a few nights before -- yes or no will do nicely. thanks.

[DVV]

Sarah Lewis stayed at the Keylers and Kennedy stayed with her parents, the Gallaghers.

What's your response to that? Same person, huh?

Nobody is sure that they were the same person.
That's a possibility.
Another explanation is "Chinese whispering", as the Star may suggest.
And why do we need explanations here?
Because it's impossible that both women had lived several identical experiences, two times, within some crucial days, especially because one of the spots is around Bethnal Green. That would be a para-normal scenario. The problem is not : have they seen the same things? but rather: why do they tell similar stories?

[DVV]

David,
If you actually knew anything about this case you would know the poorly clad woman was Kelly, not the other one.

Incredible. Does Kennedy say in this article that the poor clad woman was Kelly?
Obviously, the article doesn't say so. It means that Kennedy didn't know any of the two women.
You will notice that Kennedy seems mainly interested in the woman "whom she did not know", because she was talking with the man, was drunk like him, etc. The "poorly clad" one is almost nothing in the tableau. We don't know if she's drunk, she doesn't speak, she doesn't move. So how can you infer that she was Mary Kelly?

[Marlowe]

Sarah Lewis stayed at the Keylers and Kennedy stayed with her parents, the Gallaghers.

What's your response to that? Same person, huh?

[Ben]

Does Kennedy claim to have seen Kelly with the man -- yes or no?

In one article - Mrs. Kennedy claims to have seen the deceased. Two days later, she doesn't name the woman. She doesn't appear at the inquest. We never hear from her again. We learn that women are passing true accounts of as their own. Are we spotting a few problems here already?

Of course, since it's been established beyond all reasonable doubt that Mrs. Kennedy was either Sarah Lewis or someone parrotting her, there's not a great deal more to add.

[Marlowe]

Ben

Can you please answer my question?

[Ben]

And yet Kennedy didn't think that it might have been a good idea to specify that that "poorly clad" woman was Kelly, if Kelly it was?

[Marlowe]

Does Kennedy claim to have seen Kelly with the man -- yes or no?

Come on, squirm a little ;-)

[Marlowe]

David,
If you actually knew anything about this case you would know the poorly clad woman was Kelly, not the other one.