Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - by Harmonica 44 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Michael W Richards 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Michael W Richards 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Sam Flynn 5 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by Simon Wood 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (8 posts)
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - (4 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - (1 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: "Prey Time" - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-14-2018, 10:11 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,453
Default Kennedy and Lewis

Hello all,

Im sure we have all seen a case being attempted to merge these 2 women into a single source, so I thought Id post their remarks;

Sarah Lewis, at the Inquest;

"Sarah Lewis deposed: 1. I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. 2.I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. 2. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court. I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half- past three. I heard the clock strike.
[Coroner] What woke you up ? - I could not sleep. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female's voice shouting "Murder" loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door. There was only one scream.
[Coroner] Were you afraid ? Did you wake anybody up ? - No, I took no notice, as I only heard the one scream.
[Coroner] You stayed at Keyler's house until what time ? - Half-past five p.m. on Friday. The police would not let us out of the court.
[Coroner] Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district ? - On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman, about eight o'clock, when a gentleman passed us. He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.
[Coroner] Did he want both of you ? - No; only one. I refused. He went away and came back again, saying he would treat us. He put down his bag and picked it up again, saying, "What are you frightened about ? Do you think I've got anything in the bag ?" We then ran away, as we were frightened.
[Coroner] Was he a tall man ? - He was short, pale-faced, with a black moustache, rather small. His age was about forty.
[Coroner] Was it a large bag ? - No, about 6in to 9in long. His hat was a high round hat. He had a brownish overcoat, with a black short coat underneath. His trousers were a dark pepper-and- salt.
[Coroner] After he left you what did you do ? - We ran away.
[Coroner] Have you seen him since ? - On Friday morning, about half-past two a.m., when I was going to Miller's-court, I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia). He had no overcoat on.
[Coroner] Had he the black bag ? - Yes.
[Coroner] Were the man and woman quarrelling ? - No; they were talking. As I passed he looked at me. I don't know whether he recognised me. There was no policeman about.


Mrs Kennedy, Morning Advertiser:

"Mrs. Kennedy, 1. ..who was on the day of the murder staying with her parents at a house facing the room where the mutilated body was found, has made an important statement. She says that at about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to the house of her parents, 2. 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." There was a man-a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache-talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any head gear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man say, "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. Mrs. Kennedy went on her way, and nothing unusual occurred until about half an hour later. She states that she did not retire to rest immediately after she reached her parents' abode, but sat up, and between half-past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of "Murder!" in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated she took no further notice of the circumstance until the morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small houses in this court. When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night, she made a statement to the above effect. She has since supplemented that statement by the following:-"On Wednesday evening, about eight o'clock, I and my sister were in the neighbourhood of Bethnal-green-road, when we were accosted by a very suspicious-looking man about 40 years of age. He was about five feet seven inches high, wore a short jacket, over which he had a long top-coat. He had a black moustache, and wore a billycock hat. He invited us to accompany him into a lonely spot, as he was known about there, and there was a policeman looking at him." She asserts that no policeman was in sight. He made several strange remarks, and appeared to be agitated. He was very white in the face, and made every endeavour to prevent them looking him straight in the face. He carried a black bag. He avoided walking with them, and led the way into a very dark thoroughfare at the back of the workhouse, inviting them to follow, which they did. He then pushed open a small door in a pair of large gates, and requested one of them to follow him, remarking, "I only want one of you," whereupon the women became suspicious. He acted in a very strange and suspicious manner, and refused to leave his bag in possession of one of the females. Both women became alarmed at his actions and escaped, at the same time raising an alarm of "Jack the Ripper." A gentleman who was passing is stated to have intercepted the man, while the women made their escape. Mrs. Kennedy asserts that the man whom she saw on Friday morning with the woman at the corner of Dorset-street resembled very closely the individual who caused such alarm on the night in question, and that she would recognise him again if confronted with him. There is no cause to doubt this woman's statement."


Lets start with 3 incongruities:

If these woman are one woman, why does Sarah refer to the Keyler's as someone she knows, calling her "Mrs Keyler" at one point, and Kennedy says it was her parents house?

Why does Sarah recall seeing someone she was approached by as short and stout, and Kennedy says he was around 5'7', which would be average height for the period.

What did Kennedy mean when she said the Keylers were "directly opposite where the murder was committed" in the court? 6 houses were in that courtyard...does anyone own a court occupants list?

I have found this drawing done by a policemans notebook used in the Kitty Ronan trial;
Attached Images
 
__________________
Michael Richards

Last edited by Michael W Richards : 12-14-2018 at 10:26 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-14-2018, 01:25 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Default

The Kennedy statement has always sounded more 'natural' , describing the dress state and the refusing to go with Kelly .
I think that's close to the truth .
The Lewis statements can be discounted quite easily as not only did her memory change during the statement with the crossing out of the woman talking to the man ,but she went from not being able to describe him in any way to , at the inquest , describing him down to his hat and quite ridiculously; the colour .
I've little doubt that Kennedy was Sarah Lewis' press name .
If not you would have to query how neither woke either if they both arrived separately at the Keylers ,and failed to mention each other (and I don't mean the Bethnal green part previously , just on the night in question )
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-14-2018, 02:56 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Default

My feeling is that the early , original Kennedy story was accurate , being fresh in her mind , interviewed ,presumably , on the 9th due to its appearance in the Star and evening news of the 10th ( though they were both evening papers so the possibility remains that she was interviewed that morning of the 10th) .
During the police interview she was 'led' and the story altered .
By the inquest she'd had a major memory boost , remembering the time by the church clock ( how was this possibly unknown at interview time ?? )
Nor the short and shout , or the black wideawake hat ...... stunning really .
Something stinks and it's not the fish and potatoes
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-14-2018, 06:55 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
...
If not you would have to query how neither woke either if they both arrived separately at the Keylers ,and failed to mention each other ......
It's not mentioned because it is not important to the inquest. Besides, Lewis says she sat up in a chair, she couldn't sleep. She just dozed.
It isn't a case of failing to mention anyone. If that was the case then she also failed to mention Mr Keyler & Mrs Keyler, so perhaps you think the room was empty?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-15-2018, 01:55 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
It's not mentioned because it is not important to the inquest. Besides, Lewis says she sat up in a chair, she couldn't sleep. She just dozed.
It isn't a case of failing to mention anyone. If that was the case then she also failed to mention Mr Keyler & Mrs Keyler, so perhaps you think the room was empty?
A little different as they were most likely asleep , not wandering in as Lewis was dozing and when they heard 'oh murder', together .... "did you hear that sis? "
So she didn't say her sister could corroborate the cry ? Inconvenient that
Abberline , after separately interviewing Kennedy, decided against bringing the last person to have seen anything prior to Maxwell to the inquest , not only that but to 'lose' her official statement ?
More inconvenience for us , we ripperologists are dogged by so much misfortune lol
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-15-2018, 06:59 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,071
Default

A witness at an inquest or a trial is conditioned before hand to only answer questions with respect to what they did, what they saw & what they heard.

You'll be familiar with the testimony of Diemschitz at the Stride inquest, he says he ran for a policeman, but doesn't mention who ran with him. By Diemschitz account he was by himself.
Yet, the man who came back with him, Spooner, said that two Jews came running towards him.
The other Jew was Kozebrodski, and he was not asked to appear at the inquest, but he told the press he accompanied Diemschitz..

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski returned with Diemsschütz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up....... Both men ran off without delay to find a policeman."

Why didn't Kozebrodski appear at the Stride inquest? - because he told a similar story as Diemschitz. Much the same as why Kennedy didn't appear at the Kelly inquest, she told much the same story as Lewis.

Diemschitz made no mention of Kozebrodski, like Lewis made no mention of Kennedy. Nothing suspicious about it at all. It's just the way the inquest procedure works.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-15-2018, 05:53 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Default

Not remotely similar
With diemschutz you're talking about the same point in time .
If you were correct in that Kennedy and Lewis both existed and gave statements then they are separated by at least 30 mins and saw different things and Kennedy was the last person to have possibly have seen something of importance prior to Maxwell .
No excuse whatsoever for not calling her
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-15-2018, 07:28 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,071
Default

You still miss the point.
Two witnesses reporting the same details do not appear in court.
Both Lewis & Kennedy saw a strange man outside the Britannia, both heard the cry of murder, only Lewis saw a loiterer near the scene of the crime.
Lewis gets to testify.

Alternately, Kennedy could have been slated to appear at the next hearing, but the coroner cut the inquest short.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-15-2018, 10:17 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,650
Default

Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, Mrs Kennedy saw the deceased [Kelly] talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before. She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed.

How can this account be true when, according to George Hutchinson, who remained outside Millers Court until "the [Spitalfields] clock struck 3 o'clock," Kelly had been in Room 13 with Mister Astrakhan since around 2.15 am?

Or, if Mrs Kennedy was correct, how could George Hutchinson have seen what he allegedly saw?

It's all BS, my friends.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-16-2018, 06:28 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,071
Default

When a witness says "about", we normally allow that the time is an estimate.

"...She (Kennedy) states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house,..."

The majority of press reports concerning Kennedy use "about" when referring to the time.
Kennedy does not say the clock struck three, so she was estimating.

By now I would assume most of us know that times given by witnesses are only estimates. It seems that theorists who are intent on pushing a theory, or alternately criticizing a theory, typically try to argue the times given are suddenly precise.
Amazing that.

2:50, 2:55, 3:05 or 3:10 are all "about" three o'clock. We don't know the precise time Kennedy passed the Britannia. Clearly then, if the clock struck three o'clock as Hutchinson left Dorset St., both Kelly & Astrachan could have left within minutes of Hutch, and as the Britannia is only a 120+ feet away Kelly could have been there around 3:05-3:10. Which is "about" three o'clock.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.