Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

isnt the address if the Keylers #1 or 2 Millers Court? That would place them at the opposite end of the courtyard,

The Keylers' lodgings - Room #2 Miller's Court - was directly opposite Kelly's, Mike. Julia Venturney also lived opposite Kelly as you point out (hers was Room #1), but the houses in the Court were let out in a "one up, one down" arrangement. Ergo, both the Keylers and Julia lived directly opposite Kelly.

[perrymason]

The Keylers' lodgings - Room #2 Miller's Court - was directly opposite Kelly's, Mike. Julia Venturney also lived opposite Kelly as you point out (hers was Room #1), but the houses in the Court were let out in a "one up, one down" arrangement. Ergo, both the Keylers and Julia lived directly opposite Kelly.

Thanks Sam, although that is news to me on the location of units 1 and 2 anyway. I had thought I had seen a courtyard overview with # 1 starting in the opposite corner of the court, and I thought Julia was unit # 11 or something. Ive just checked and in the Times on the 13th it gives her address as #1...so right you are Sam.

That does give me pause on some of her testimony now. I had thought her POV quite different when in the chair semi sleeping.

Thanks Sam...cheers.

[Wickerman]

Michael.
Mary Ann Cox stated she lived at No. 5 room, "the last house at the top of the court".
Inquest Testimony, Nov. 12th, 1888.

No.s 1 & 2 were directly behind McCarthy's 'Back Shop' (he also had a front shop which faced directly onto Dorset St.)

[Ben]

in other words she didn't say she didn't know both women.

Right, so "Mrs. Kennedy" had the opportunity to state that she knew that the "poorly clad" woman was Mary Jane Kelly the murder victim, but cryptically neglected to mention this minor detail in her account?

That makes glorious, fabulous sense, Marlowe.

Thanks to everyone else for their useful contributions.

I think most people get the picture here.

[Wickerman]

Here's an interesting extract:

Sarah Lewis was not a widow. She was married, so she cannot have been Mrs. Kennedy's companion....

Hold on a second Ben, you are saying she was married?

I think Sarah Lewis said she had words with her "husband", yet we seem to have learned she was a "widow".
Well, if I recall, McCarthy said he originally let No. 13 to Kelly and the man he took to be her husband (Barnett). Common law arrangements were precisely that, very common.
If you remember, Kelly was also a "widow" who had yet again set up with another man as her current "husband" - Barnett.

The fact Sarah Lewis says she has a husband does not rule out her family (sister?) still regarding her as a "widow", in the legal sense.
Apparently there were many women who were widows but had a current "common-law husband".

[Ben]

I think Sarah Lewis said she had words with her "husband", yet we seem to have learned she was a "widow".

Oh no, WM, there was never any suggestion that Sarah Lewis was a widow. There was only ever a suggestion that she had a husband; the chap she had had words with and who prompted her to brave the elements and crash at the Keylers' house in Miller's Court.

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. Moreover, there would no reason to continue to refer to Lewis as a "widow" if she was cohabiting with a common-law husband, not that there was ever any suggestion that the man Lewis referred to was anything other than a normal husband; Mr. Lewis.

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. Kennedy was either Lewis herself, or someone who had churned out Lewis' evidence as her own experiences.

[Wickerman]

At the risk of appearing pedantic, I'm just going to run through this 'eyewitness' testimony by Lewis & Hutchinson.
I don't think they match.

Hutchinson provides the sequence of events.
"They both went into Dorset St. I followed them"
"They both stood at the corner of the court"
"They both went up the court together"
"I then went to the court to see if I could see them, I could not"
" I stood there for about 3/4 of an hour" (from 2:00-2:45 am)

That sequence is pretty clear, Hutch was behind them all the time, and, what is apparent is that while Hutch is standing opposite the court, the couple (Astrakhan & Kelly) are nowhere to be seen, they have now gone into No. 13.

However, Sarah Lewis contends:
"when I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset St."
(This is deemed to have been "Hutch-on-watch")
(therefore Astrakhan & Kelly are already inside No. 13)

Then Lewis contends:
"On Friday morning about 1/2 past two when I was coming to Millers court I met the same man with a female, in Commercial St. near the Ringers......I passed by them and looked back.....I looked again when I got to the corner of Dorset St."

Lewis is saying the she saw this man & woman before she got to the court (at 2:30 am) where Hutch was already on watch (from 2:00-2:45 am) - so how can this couple Lewis saw, and whom she passed, be the same couple that Hutch had followed - by Lewis's own testimony Hutch is ahead of this couple, he is already standing opposite Millers court when Lewis arrives there at 2:30 am.

Hutch met this couple at 2:00am, Lewis saw 'a' couple at 2:30 am, by which time according to Hutch, Astrakhan & Kelly were already inside No. 13.

How does Marlow rectify this?

[Marlowe]

Wickerman,

I posted that a woman (Kennedy) said she saw Mary Kelly with the man who tried to lure her into a gateway. And that the description she gave matches Hutchinson's very closely. We can probably learn something from this, I thought.

But, unfortunately, I was challenged by a drama queen and a foot stomper who said that I was lying, crazy, trolling, moronic etc. etc. A normal day, perhaps. I then proved they were wrong. There is nothing for me to rectify.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
With reference to Kelly never giving people the impression that Barnett was her husband, we should refer to McCarthys words of the 1Oth November[Times]'
'She came to live with a man named Kelly, and as she often posed as his wife, became known as Mary jane kelly.'
obviously Kelly was a alias for Barnett, but it would appear that she classed herself as his wife.
Questions arise.
Why did Barnett originaly call himself Kelly?
At what time did he revert back to his actual name?
But thats another thread.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I don't think you read Wickerman's post properly, Marlowe.

He's asking how you can establish a paralell between Hutchinson's man and Lewis' "Bethnal Green" man if they cannot have been the same person. Why? Because, as WM points out, the Astrakhan man would already have been ensconsed in room #13 when the alleged Bethnal Green man was at the corner of the street near the Brittania; the same time that Lewis saw the loitering man in a wideawke.

He cannot have been in two places at once, and thus cannot have been the same person.

I fully agree with you over the possible congruity between the Kennedy and Hutchinson sightings. It is interesting, and I've explained why I find it so from the outset.

I posted that a woman (Kennedy) said she saw Mary Kelly with the man who tried to lure her into a gateway.

Actually, you said: "A woman, who knows Mary Kelly because her parents lived near her, saw Mary Kelly with a man". We all wondered where you were getting these bold assertions from, but instead of responding, you decided instead to toss of the sort of personal insults you're resorting to now ("drama queen", "foot stomper"). If you couldn't remember, there was no dishonour in saying so.

Eventually, I located the article, which turned out to clarify matters considerably.

Hi Richard,

I think McCarthy was simply getting mixed up. He assumed that Mary Kelly had borrowed the name from Barnett - which wasn't the case - thus assuming that she was "posing" as his wife. There are sufficient indications, surely, that Kelly was known as "Kelly" before she met Barnett.

Best regards,
Ben

[Marlowe]

Ben,

Let's get one thing clear from the outset. Trying to claim that the Kennedy/Kelly/Hutchinson connection is something you agreed with from the start, after our series of exchanges, just isn't going to fly. Got that brother?

You have always viewed these message boards as a type of stage, where you're performing to a crowd -- a bit creepy, perhaps, but to each his own.
However, what you've tried to do in your last post -- essentially taking credit for something I was trying to bring out -- and then implying I didn't know where my sources were -- when you clearly knew I did -- is a shining example of someone with ZERO INTEGRITY. In message board terms -- the lowest form of life. But that is your past performance anyway -- it's something you've demonstrated on numerous occasions with other posters who you disagreed with.

As I alluded to above, viewing this forum as a type of stage, borders on psychosis, and you have disassociated big time if you have forgotten the posts that came before your last.

A small reminder: My first post reads: Ben is wrong. Mrs Kennedy saw Mary Kelly with the EXACT same person that Hutchinson described in his statement. Hutch merely gave a more precise description (and a bit of an upgrade..hmm)...for some curious reason. Both descriptions are nearly identical, however. If I get the time I'll prove it.

Here is a sampling of some of your replies:

(1) Mrs. Kennedy never said any such thing, as Im sure you're fully aware.
(2) So next time you're free, you'll be posting a contemorary account from Mrs Kennedy in which she claims to have seen "Kelly" in the company of "the man described by Hutchinson"? Can't wait.
(3) It's also completely baseless.
(4) No Marlowe, just no
(5) Ah yes, that'll be Mrs Kennedy claiming to have seen "Kelly" with the man described by Hutchinson". I'm positively piddling myself in anticipation
(trust me Ben, "drama queen" was me being kind ;-)
(6) I'm afraid you're just inventing things. Neither Lewis nor Kennedy ever mentioned seeing "Mary Kelly" on the night in question.

And now here you are trying to say you didn't know what I was getting at until YOU clarified matters. Even your imaginary audience knows you're full of it.

M

[Ben]

You have always viewed these message boards as a type of stage, where you're performing to a crowd -- a bit creepy, perhaps, but to each his own.

Creepy?

That's coming from the man whose profile photograph from the old message boards featured a man in a black face-mask of the order donned by the sexual sadist/killer in the film 8MM, in which he appeared to be squashing some sort of meat between his hands. When others commented on the creepiness and inappropriate nature the image, Marlowe defended it on the grounds that it was a serial killer website, as though we're glamourizing these people.

However, what you've tried to do in your last post -- essentially taking credit for something I was trying to bring out

You didn't know where your sources were.

You made several cryptic references to something you think you found once, but couldn't remember much about and couldn't relocate. We asked you to provide your sources. You didn't. You just insulted people instead. You insinuated that all teenagers were arrogant and stupid, which would usually be considered a pretty outrageous and baseless slur if it wasn't for the risible nature of the source.

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. We then discover that "Mrs. Kennedy" reappears again in a later inteview in which she does not identify any of them women she claims to have seen. A far cry from your original assertion which you quote above, that "Mrs Kennedy saw Mary Kelly with the EXACT same person that Hutchinson described in his statement" as though it were established fact, when we know it to be completely false.

Now you're ignoring the points raised by other contributors in favour of persisting in your obsessive, stalkerish vendetta against me.

[Marlowe]

Wow...you're more gone than I ever could have imagined

"Marlowe defended it blah blah..." I'm right here Ben...it's me you're talking to, isn't it?

Do you hear applause in your head, too?


You wrote: "you didn't know where your sources were. You made several cryptic references to something you think you found once, but couldn't remember much about and couldn't relocate."

Ok. prove that above quote. Show me where I said I couldn't find my source.
you are way...way out there dude. Get help