Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Fisherman]

I realize that, Ben. But I still think it adds up to us being forced to swallow a very improbable scenario. Things like having had a hard time to sleep, sitting in a chair through the night, would not have added anything to her credibility but the obvious risk of the reporters finding out that they had been fooled by means of a simple comparison.

I have been thinking a little bit along the lines that Kewis/Kennedy was interwieved by a sloppy reporter who forgot to ask her name, whereupon an obliging neighbour of the "Gallaghers/Keylers/Kennedys" filled it in for her. But I must say that I find such a solution equally improbable - reporters are always eager to get the names of the ones they talk to. It is priority number one.

Whichever way we look at this one, we are going to run into some very strange logic.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Things like having had a hard time to sleep, sitting in a chair through the night, would not have added anything to her credibility but the obvious risk

I disagree, Fish. It would have done.

If you think of it; she would have to have been awake in order to hear a "Murder" cry at 3:45am, or whenever she alleged. If there was any salient detail that needed copying, it was undoubtedly that bit. As for the "obvious risk of reporters finding out", it's clear that one of them did immediately, which is why he mentioned it in his report.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Well, Ben, much as I see your logic here, if I was Mrs Kennedy I would have opted for something like "I could no sleep and was pacing the room". To use the "sitting half-sleeping in a chair"-analogy is about as clever as stating that you were woken up by a cat called Middles walking over your body...

Then again, she may of course have suffered from a case of combined ignorance and time pressure.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hey Fish - I'd agree that it was an arguably lousy effort on Kennedy's part, which is why she didn't appear to last that long. However, I'm not sure she specified "half sleeping" or even a "chair" as Lewis did. It was more vague, as I recall.

Cheers,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

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.

...or the papers picked up the story, Chinese Whisper-style, from other bystanders, and got it wrong - this could have come about through a number of mechanisms. The source(s) might have known Lewis by another name, they might have misheard, the pressmen themselves misheard, or names got mixed up in the rush. It only takes one press agency hack to balls it up, and all subscribing newspapers get infected by the same "virus" of inaccuracy. It may be significant, in that context, that the "Kennedy" stories were among the early reports, whereas after the inquest most accounts settled on "Lewis", and the timings became more uniform.

[DVV]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;50051 It may be significant, in that context, that the "Kennedy" stories were among the early reports, whereas after the inquest most accounts settled on "Lewis", and the timings became more uniform.[/QUOTE]

It is significant, and after the inquest, nobody talks about Mary Kelly at the street corner, and if the "poorly clad woman" had been said to be Mary, as posted by Marlowe, the various articles would have mentioned and underlined it.

Amitiés,
David

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi, with respect to what has been posted about "Inquest summaries".
I'm not sure what you mean, I'm guessing that you may mean the pre-inquest statements all taken on Nov. 9th by, I assume, Abberline, as we are told they are mostly in his handwriting.

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

Contrary to what has been suggested, I might expect fewer errors in those pre-inquest statements as they were presumably taken one-to-one, across a table. Not like at the inquest where witnesses are speaking across a wide room which lends itself to transcription errors, which are all too evident.
Where for example the actual address of Sarah Lewis, 34 Great Pearl St. was recorded as 24 Great Powell St.
Which made me ponder if this woman had an accent?, perhaps she was Irish?

The actual Inquest testimonies are valuable, errors notwithstanding, because they cover more detail that the pre-inquest statements. The little that is provided though in these pre-inquest statements may be more accurate, so both certainly have their value. And of course, the next biggest valuable source for all the Whitechapel murders are the press reports themselves.
We just have to work harder to tweak out the errors, of which there be no shortage..

[Wickerman]

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....

Yes Ben, I get your point but, isn't it a shame those press accounts didn't point out who they were talking about?
I'm not saying your argument is wrong, I'm saying you are assuming the press article refers to Kennedy/Lewis, when it might not. And given the parallels we have talked about on here, I would say its only obvious that the charge of 'parroting' is not applicable to these two/one women/woman.

[Wickerman]

... The source(s) might have known Lewis by another name, they might have misheard, the pressmen themselves misheard, or names got mixed up in the rush...

Interesting how the official record of the Inquest has Sarah Lewis' address wrong, but the Star reporter seemed to get it right (as published on the 12th).
Maybe the Star reporter was Irish?

[Ben]

I'm not saying your argument is wrong, I'm saying you are assuming the press article refers to Kennedy/Lewis, when it might not.

I accept that it isn't an established certainly, WM, but when we have a report from a Star correspodent to the effect that certain women were copying "Oh Murder" accounts and evidence of an "Oh murder" account being attributed to two different women, it's almost an inescapable conclusion that the Kennedy/Lewis account was an example of the phenomenon described by the star reporter.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I accept that it isn't an established certainly, WM, but when we have a report from a Star correspodent to the effect that certain women were copying "Oh Murder" accounts and evidence of an "Oh murder" account being attributed to two different women, ....

But Ben, first we have to establish if they ARE two different women.
Only then can you apply your argument.

[Ben]

Hi WM - It's quite possible that they were the same person, I agree, but if they weren't, the "parotting" hypothesis outlined by the reporter would seem the most logical explanation, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting how the official record of the Inquest has Sarah Lewis' address wrong, but the Star reporter seemed to get it right (as published on the 12th).
Maybe the Star reporter was Irish?

Indeed, Jon - perhaps he just knew the area and/or understood the Cockney accent. Some other newspapers report her address (correctly) as "Great Pearl Street", whereas the official inquest reports have it as "Great Powell Street". In Cockney, "pearl" tends to sound something like "paiw" (can't render it phonetically - I'll post a .wav file if you like) to the untutored ear. To the "educated" ear it might then come across as "Powell" - as in Baden Powell, or as posh folks pronounce it "Baden Pole".

[Wickerman]

Hi WM - It's quite possible that they were the same person, I agree, but if they weren't, the "parotting" hypothesis outlined by the reporter would seem the most logical explanation, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

For what it's worth Ben, I would think the hierarchy would go along the lines of:
Are Kennedy & Lewis the same person?
if 'Yes' = problem solved,
if 'No' = then...

Were they siblings who went everywhere together?
if 'Yes' = problem solved,
if 'No' = then...

Is Kennedy plagiarizing Lewis?, (Lewis was first on record with her statement, we think..).

[Ben]

Hi WM,

I really can't go with the "siblings who went everywhere together option". I just find that too implausible, besdies which they wouldn't have been "together", but deciding independently to do precisely the same thing on precisely the same night - 9th November - with neither one mentioning the other. 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).

If they weren't the same person, then I'd go with the "Kennedy plagiarizing Lewis" option, as it would make sense of an earlier report that specifically mentioned women plagiarizing "Oh Murder" accounts. I'm not sure there's any evidence that would indicate that Lewis' statement came before Kennedy's.

Best regards,
Ben